bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Identifying barriers to equitable biomarker testing in underserved patients with NSCLC: A mixed-methods study to inform quality improvement opportunities.
Authors: Boehmer Leigh , Basu Roy Upal Kunal , Schrag Janelle , Martin Nikki A. , Salinas Gregory D. , Coleman Brandon , Howson Alexandra , Shivakumar Latha 
Published: September 2021

123 Background: Despite recent advances in cancer precision medicine, patients from underserved communities do not have equal access to biomarker testing and targeted therapies. This study used a mixed-methods approach to identify barriers to equitable precision medicine access among underserved patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Paired national surveys (one clinician-facing and one patient-facing) were developed respectively by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and LUNGevity Foundation. Administered online in spring/summer 2020, the surveys were designed to identify key attitudes/barriers related to biomarker testing, resource needs, and current practice patterns for pertinent stakeholders. Survey data was triangulated with data from focus groups (2 clinician and 6 patient) conducted in fall 2020. The study was approved by Advarra IRB. Results: A total of 99 clinicians responded, with 67% (66/99) representing oncologists from community cancer programs. 248 patients responded to the LUNGevity survey, with 161 coming from the general population and 87 from the LUNGevity network (patients with relatively high income and education levels). Most clinicians surveyed indicated they were “very” (34%) or “extremely” likely (44%) to discuss biomarker testing with NSCLC patients. Academic clinicians, however, were more likely than community-based clinicians to order testing at the time of initial biopsy (76% vs 52%, P =.02). Academic clinicians were also more likely to involve the patient’s family in biomarker testing discussions (85% vs 59%, P =.009). Patient survey results identified that medical oncologists are the primary source of biomarker testing information; 64% of LUNGevity-connected and 37% of underserved patients. Eighty-five percent of LUNGevity-connected patients receive biomarker testing versus 52% for general patients (p < 0.05). Notably, more than a quarter (27%) of underserved patients who have undergone biomarker testing do not know their results. Clinician focus group participants corroborated survey findings that most clinicians receive testing results in 7-14 days, but for 23% of community and 6% of academic clinicians the process can take over 2 weeks. They identified disparities in offering biomarker testing and results to patients with known or presumed low socioeconomic status (SES) and/or health literacy. This was supported by patient survey data, which showed biomarker testing was proactively offered to only 40% of low-SES patients. Conclusions: This study identifies key areas of ongoing need related to equitable biomarker testing. Quality-improvement opportunities exist to address both clinician and patient barriers to guideline-concordant biomarker testing for underserved patients with NSCLC.
The association of sexual orientation with prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and diagnosis.
Authors: Herriges Michael Joseph , Pinkhasov Ruben , Lehavot Keren , Shapiro Oleg , Jacob Joseph M , Sanford Thomas , Liu Nick , Bratslavsky Gennady , Goldberg Hanan 
Published: September 2021

129 Background: Data on heterogeneity in cancer screening and diagnosis rates among lesbians/gays and bisexuals is lacking. Recent studies showed that lesbians/gays and bisexuals have decreased healthcare utilization compared to heterosexual counterparts and continue to experience discrimination in healthcare. Few studies have examined how sexual orientation impacts cancer screening and prevalence. We, therefore, investigated the association between sexual orientation and prevalent sex-specific cancer including prostate, breast, and cervical cancer. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey-based US study, including men and women aged 18+ from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) database between 2017-2019. The primary endpoint was individual-reported prostate, breast, and cervical cancer screening and prevalence rates among heterosexual and LGB men and women. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed association of various covariates with undergoing screening and diagnosis of these cancers. Results: Overall, 4,441 and 6,333 heterosexual men and women, respectively, were compared to 225 and 213 lesbian/gay and bisexual men and women, respectively. Lesbians/gays and bisexuals were younger and less likely to be screened for prostate, breast, and cervical cancer than heterosexuals. A higher proportion of heterosexual women than lesbian and bisexual women were screened for cervical cancer with pap smears (95.36% vs. 90.48% and 86.11%, p = < 0.001) and breast cancer with mammograms (80.74% vs. 63.81% and 45.37%, p = < 0.001). Similarly, a higher proportion of heterosexual men than gay and bisexual men were screened for prostate cancer with PSA blood tests (41.27% vs. 30.53% and 27.58%, p = < 0.001). Conclusions: Lesbians/gays and bisexuals in the US may be less likely to undergo screening of sex-specific prevalent malignancies, including prostate, breast, and cervical cancer. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to improve cancer screening among lesbians/gays and bisexuals.
Differences by race in systemic oncologic end-of-life (EOL) care among patients with cancer.
Authors: Adelson Kerin B. , Wang Xiaoliang , Ascha Mustafa , Miksad Rebecca A. , Showalter Timothy N , Calip Gregory Sampang , Gross Cary Philip , Canavan Maureen 
Published: September 2021

137 Background: Prior studies indicate that Black patients with cancer are more likely to receive aggressive EOL care, including chemotherapy within 14 days (d) prior to death. However, most studies are limited to specific subgroups, and it is unclear if disparities remain in the immunotherapy era. In this study, we evaluated racial differences in systemic oncologic EOL treatment among a national all-payer cohort of patients treated in routine practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Patients with confirmed cancer diagnosis, with documented treatment on or after 1/1/2011 and who died between 2015 and 2019, were included. Patients with documented race of White or Black or African American were included. We defined our outcome measures as receipt of any systemic oncologic treatment within 30d or 14d prior to death, and also stratified by mono-chemotherapy (Chemo) and immunotherapy ± targeted therapy (ICI). We used mixed-level logistic regression models to assess the likelihood of receiving each treatment, compared to patients without any EOL treatment, between Black and White patients, adjusted for patient- and practice-level characteristics as fixed effects and a practice-specific random intercept. Race-specific adjusted rates were estimated using stratified analysis. Results: A total of 40,675 White and 5,150 Black patients were included in the analysis. Compared to White patients, Black patients were younger at diagnosis, were more likely to be female and have Medicaid coverage. Black patients were more likely to be treated at practices with higher patient-to-physician ratio (25.8% in highest quintile vs. 18.7%) and with a high proportion (> 10%) of patients with Medicaid (38.1% vs. 31.6%). Compared to White patients within the same practice, Black patients were less likely to receive any EOL treatment within 30d (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.81-0.93) or 14d (aOR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.96). Adjusted rates of any EOL treatment within 30d prior to death were 33.8% and 37.6% among Black and White patients, respectively. When stratified by treatment types, Black patients were less likely to receive ICI within 30d prior to death, compared to White patients (aOR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76-1.00). Conclusions: Our findings differ from prior studies of oncologic EOL care and suggest that in contemporary practice Black patients are less likely to receive anti-cancer therapy near EOL, largely driven by lower rates of ICI use. Future research should investigate the complex causal pathway underlying observed racial differences among patient and practice-level factors.
Promotion of prostate cancer screening equity: A quality improvement education initiative.
Authors: Stevens Hobbs Kristen , Farrington Thomas , McGlone Andrew , Leiba Lawrence Roxanne , Jacobs Ginny , Lazure Patrice , McFadden Pamela , Hall Laura Lee 
Published: September 2021

140 Background: Black men are disparately affected by prostate cancer (PC). They are more likely to develop PC and at an earlier age when the disease is more advanced at diagnosis. As a result, Black men are two to three times more likely to die from PC than white men. Given these disparities, experts increasingly promote screening for PC in Black men at a younger age. Methods: To inform implementation of a quality improvement education (QIE) project in three primary care practices in Maryland, a zip code analysis of the prevalence of PC was performed. Maryland practices were selected due to higher rates of PC in regions of the state and significant Black populations (Table). The QIE initiative started with a baseline practice assessment survey (including information on panel size, patient demographics, PC screening/treatment approaches, and barriers) and an analysis of current PC screening rates. Health system leaders and champions from the practice sites received training on patient-centered conversations with high-risk Black patients and concerning QIE planning. The champions developed rapid cycle improvement plans to implement increased screening using a patient-oriented online educational platform ( Dr. PSA ), as well as posters, and placards for patient education. Results: The overall national prevalence of PC in Medicare Fee-for-Service Program beneficiaries in 2018 was 2.65%. For Black beneficiaries the overall prevalence was 2.89%. Prevalence for beneficiaries in specific Maryland zip codes are detailed in Table. *Data not available; Source: NMQF Prostate Cancer Index Baseline practice assessment data revealed that patient panels ranged from 4,000 to 58,163 patients, with Black patients accounting for 50% or more of two of the practices and 25 to 50% of the third practice. Barriers to screening identified include financial issues, insurance restrictions, and lack of knowledge about PC and screening. Baseline screening rates are approximately 75%. Conclusions: Zip code prevalence analysis and baseline practice assessment data confirmed the relevance of implementing a QIE initiative in the three selected sites. Through a mixed-methods evaluation study, practice staff knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices will be assessed pre- and post-QIE initiative to assess impact of the initiative and determine opportunities for further improvement in PC screening practices.[Table: see text]
Interaction with patients of color or ethnic minority (PCEM): Oncologist perceptions of racial anxiety and/or implicit bias (RA/IB).
Authors: Balanean Alexandrina , Jeune-Smith Yolaine , Feinberg Bruce A. , Gajra Ajeet 
Published: September 2021

141 Background: Oncologists interacting with PCEM may be unaware of RA/IB, yet data show lower-quality care. Helping oncologists recognize this may improve quality of patient-provider interaction, care, and outcomes. We conducted a descriptive study of medical/hematologic oncologists to assess perceptions of RA/IB impact on PCEM interaction. Methods: From February to April 2021, U.S.-based medical/hematologic oncologists participated in an online survey of perceptions on cancer care and outcomes in PCEM (part of broader survey of various clinical and practice-related concerns). Questions used a modified 5-point Likert scale with an option of declining to answer, and respondents were aware data would be anonymized and aggregated. Results: Among 369 physicians surveyed, median years in practice were 17 (range 2-49). Most (72.4%) were in community settings; 64.0% were age 40 to 59 years; 20.6% identified as female, 70.5% male, and 8.7% declined to disclose. Racial distribution was 32.0% White, 33.1% Asian, 7.0% Black, 4.1% Hispanic/Latinx, and 18.7% declined to disclose. When asked the degree of RA/IB White providers had toward PCEM, 39.6% chose low/none, 33.3% moderate, 14.9% high/very high, and 12.2% declined. When asked whether RA/IB among White providers adversely affects PCEM, 37.1% somewhat/strongly agreed, 29.3% somewhat/strongly disagreed, 23.6% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 10.0% declined. Also, 7.9% declined to estimate percent of non-White patients managed. Perceived frequency of scenarios involving RA/IB impacting PCEM interaction at their practices was also assessed (Table). Notably, 12.0% to 14.0% declined to answer regarding their own practices. Although most oncologists (76.4%) perceived RA/IB among White providers toward PCEM, only 37.1% agreed it had adverse effects. Conclusions: Discrepancy in perception of RA/IB among White providers and its effect on PCEM suggests a need to show causality, and declining to respond suggests mistrust/apprehension in expressing true views. Findings suggest oncologists may benefit from improved education and awareness regarding RA/IB in PCEM interaction, treatment, and outcomes. Provider responses (N=369).[Table: see text]
Association between utilization patterns and racial disparities in hospice enrollment among women dying of ovarian cancer.
Authors: Mullins Megan , Uppal Shitanshu , Cote Michele L. , Clarke Philippa , Ruterbusch Julie J. , Hawley Sarah T. , Wallner Lauren P. 
Published: September 2021

142 Background: Goals of care conversations are associated with less aggressive end of life care and may be most effective in an outpatient setting. Yet, the relationship between initial utilization of care and subsequent hospice enrollment is unknown. We evaluated whether inpatient, outpatient and emergency department (ED) evaluation and management (E/M) visits differed by patient race/ethnicity, and whether less outpatient management was associated with failure to enroll in hospice in a sample of women dying of ovarian cancer. Methods: Women diagnosed with first and only ovarian cancer who died between 2000 and 2016 and had ≥ one inpatient and outpatient ovarian cancer E/M encounter between diagnosis and the last two months of life in SEER-Medicare were included (N = 8,806). Women whose proportion of outpatient E/M encounters fell below the median were classified as having low outpatient management (vs. high). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate the association of: (1) race/ethnicity with outpatient management, and (2) outpatient management with hospice enrollment, stratified by race/ethnicity. Models were adjusted for stage at diagnosis, histology, survival time, age, Charlson score, geographic region, and year. Results: In this sample, 29.2% of ovarian cancer E/M took place in an inpatient setting, 66.4% outpatient, and 4.4% in the ED. Non-Hispanic Black women had 53.9% of their E/M occur in an outpatient setting, compared to 67.6% in non-Hispanic White women, 60.7% in Hispanic women, and 64.2% in women of other races (p <.001). Black women had 78% greater odds of low outpatient management when compared to non-Hispanic White women (adjusted OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.46-2.18). Women with low (vs. high) outpatient management had 33% greater odds of not enrolling in hospice (adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI: 1.20-1.48). The association of low outpatient management with not enrolling in hospice was most pronounced among Black women (Black adjusted OR: 1.54, 95%CI: 1.02-2.32 vs. Non-Hispanic White adjusted OR: 1.32, 95%CI: 1.18-1.48). Conclusions: Although most ovarian cancer care takes place in an outpatient setting, Black women have the lowest proportion of outpatient care, and low outpatient management was associated with not enrolling in hospice. When deploying interventions to improve goals of care conversations for women with ovarian cancer, racial/ethnic disparities in care settings must be considered.
Stage at cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic in western Washington state.
Authors: Fedorenko Catherine R. , Kreizenbeck Karma L. , Li Li , Panattoni Laura Elizabeth , Shankaran Veena , Ramsey Scott David 
Published: September 2021

145 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical care, including routine cancer screening for breast, colorectal, lung and cervical cancers. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on stage at diagnosis for cancer patients. Methods: Using data from the Washington State SEER records we compared AJCC stage for patients diagnosed with cancer in 2017-2019 to 2020 for two time periods, March to June (initial pandemic months) and July to December (later pandemic months). Patients were included if they were age 18+, diagnosed with a solid tumor, and not diagnosed at autopsy. Results: In the early phase of the pandemic, March – June 2020, there was a shift to cancers being diagnosed at a later stage compared to the same time period in 2017-2019 (Stage III: 13.5% to 14.9%, Stage IV: 16.2% to 19.7%). There was also a decrease in cancer diagnoses for cancers that are often detected through routine screening. As a percentage of all cancer diagnoses, both melanoma (13.2% to 9.8%) and colon cancer diagnoses (7.2% to. 6.7%) decreased during the early pandemic. In the later phase of the pandemic, July to December 2020, the stage at diagnosis showed an indication of returning to pre-pandemic levels with an increase in the proportion of early stage cancers (In situ: 16.6% to 19.3%, Stage I: 38.8% to 41.1%). Stage at diagnosis trends varied by tumor type. For colorectal cancer, the overall number of diagnoses decreased during the initial pandemic months. Stage I diagnoses decreased and Stage IV cancer diagnoses increased in both early and late stages of the pandemic. Conclusions: In Washington State, the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on stage at diagnosis potentially caused by delays or interruptions in medical care. Additional studies are needed to understand how this shift in stage at diagnosis impacted treatment and outcomes for patients.
Yoga therapy as a supportive care strategy for family caregivers of patients with primary brain tumor: Results of 3-arm pilot randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Milbury Kathrin , Li Jing , Weathers Shiao-Pei S. , Silva Rosangela , Snyder Stella , Li Yisheng , Shih Tina , Bruera Eduardo , Cohen Lorenzo 
Published: September 2021

156 Background: Seeking to address the well-documented burden of caring for a loved one with a high-grade glioma, this pilot RCT compared the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a dyadic versus individual yoga intervention as a supportive care strategy for family caregivers. Methods: Caregivers completed self-reported assessments of QOL (SF-36) and caregiver burden (CRA) at baseline. Then, patients and caregivers were randomized to either a dyadic yoga (DY) arm in which caregivers attended the sessions together with the patient, a caregiver yoga (CY) arm in which the caregiver attended all sessions individually or a usual care (UC) arm. Both yoga programs were delivered over 15 sessions either in-person or via videoconference (Zoom) concurrently while patients were undergoing standard radiotherapy. All arms were re-assessed at the end of treatment and then again 3-months later. Results: We consented 76 patient-caregiver dyads (59%) and randomized 23 dyads to the DY, 22 to the CY, and 22 to the UC arm. Attendance in the DY was higher than in the CY group (session means, DY = 12.23, CY = 9.00; P =.06, d =.57). Caregivers (80% female; 78% non-Hispanic White; mean age = 53 yrs) reported significantly more overall subjective benefit in the CY compared to the DY arm (means, CY = 1.39, DY = 1.81, P <.05, d = 1.45). Caregivers slightly favored the in-person delivery over the Zoom-based sessions (means, in person: 1.48; Zoom: 1.82, P =.10; d =.77). A clinically significant, medium effect size was found for improved QOL in favor of the CY over the DY group (means, CY = 49.45, DY = 44.45; F = 3.58, P =.07; d =.67). Caregivers in the CY group also reported less caregiving-related health declines compared to the DY group (means, CY = 2.18; DY = 2.48; F = 4.23, P <.05; d =.42). Caregivers in the CY group reported less caregiving-related financial burden than the UC group (means: CY = 2.79; UC = 3.21; F = 3.32, P =.08; d =.35). Conclusions: Despite lower attendance, caregivers in the CY arm reported greater subjective overall benefit, experienced better mental QOL and less caregiver burden compared with those in the DY and UC comparison arms. It appears that individual rather than dyadic delivery may be a superior supportive care approach for this vulnerable caregiver population. An adequately powered, larger efficacy trial of this intervention strategy is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02481349.
Mobile app care utility: Patients and caregivers perception.
Authors: Oakley-Girvan Ingrid , Yunis Reem , Kurtovich Elaine , Aghaee Sara , Kubo Ai , Ramsey Maya , Longmire Michelle , Neeman Elad , Liu Raymond 
Published: September 2021

157 Background: There is increasing appreciation for the insight provided by combining low-burden home-based remote digital measurements with patient and observer reported outcomes. In this study, we assessed perspectives of cancer patients and their caregivers on the utility of a mobile app combined with a smartwatch for collection of specific outcomes and to provide clinically actionable data. Methods: In a decentralized clinical trial we consented and enrolled (10/12/2020-4/30/2021) dyads that consisted of a cancer patient and their informal caregiver. All participants had to own an Apple iPhone 6 or higher. Patients were provided with an Apple watch 3 or 4 and downloaded a patient informed mobile app (DigiBioMarC). Caregivers only download a caregiver informed mobile app (TOGETHERCare). Participants were asked to use their respective app for 28 days during which time specific surveys and activity requests were delivered through the mobile app; digital measures of physical activity were collected via the smartwatch. At the end of the app usage period, questions were asked in a video interview about the patient and caregiver perspectives on use of their respective apps and what they believed could be impacted if their doctor were to receive the app information. Respondents could select Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. Results: Fifty-four dyads were enrolled; four were unable to continue due to a decline in health. Questions were drafted and IRB approved in time to be asked of 45 dyads. The Table lists some results and the percent of respondents that selected Strongly Agree or Agree. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers reported that both apps would encourage them to take better care of themselves/be more physically active and would improve emotional wellbeing. A high proportion of respondents also felt the apps would improve communication with their doctor and provide early important information for the doctor to act upon compared to usual care. Additional work in a large randomized trial is planned to evaluate specific care outcomes. [Table: see text]