bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Addressing alert fatigue by reducing radiation oncology software alert volume.
Authors: Pashtan Itai Max , Kosak Tara , Beaudette Kevin , Buckman Amy , Clark Abigail , Connolly Jill , Hicks Lynne , Hudson Julie , Ribok Rose , Ricciarelli Ann Marie , Scholl Kelly , Zanelli Candy , Kearney Meghan , Mak Raymond H. 
Published: September 2021

261 Background: Radiation therapists (RTTs) administer radiation treatments to patients with cancer. Treatments are delivered using linear accelerators (LINACs), operated by vendor specific software. Prior to delivering treatment, RTTs perform a time-out, and read aloud critical electronic communications (alerts) entered by members of the radiation oncology care team. Alerts are effective at communicating critical information, including treatment setup and imaging instructions, but can become a source of error due to alert fatigue when placed indiscriminately. Methods: A multicenter retrospective review of alert use per patient was conducted in 4 radiation oncology centers with a total of 6 LINACs. Alert usage was reviewed pre-intervention for 40 randomly selected patients using manual chart review. Each alert was reviewed for frequency and utilization. In attempt of improving communication and reducing alert fatigue, a multidisciplinary process improvement working group (with Radiation Oncologists, RTTs, nursing, physicists, and administration) was formed to review the utilization of alerts in our department and propose interventions. Three months after intervention, an additional 40 chart review was performed. Our aim was to reduce the volume of alerts by 20% within 3 months. A 2-tail t-test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Process improvements were implemented to reduce the volume of alerts per patient. Interventions included 1) defining an alert for all departmental staff, 2) creating guidelines for appropriate utilization of alerts, 3) routing communications not critical to RTTs at the time of radiation treatment administration through other channels, and 4) training staff as to the above. The pre-intervention review yielded 239 alerts. Post-intervention, there were 173 alerts, a reduction of 27% (p =.008). Conclusions: This practice change reduced average alert volume by 27%. As a result, alerts which are critical to safe treatment delivery by RTTs (i.e. daily setup alerts), became more heavily represented. Other alerts, which could be communicated effectively in other ways (i.e. OTVs [weekly on treatment visit with Radiation Oncologist]), were eliminated. By decreasing alert volume, the risk of RTT alert fatigue is reduced, communication improved, and treatment safety enhanced.[Table: see text]
Clinical practice patterns for advanced breast cancer patients on CDK4/6 inhibitors receiving palliative radiation therapy.
Authors: Stjepanovic Neda , Gandhi Sonal , Tran William , Thawer Alia , Warner Ellen 
Published: September 2021

269 Background: Patients with hormone-receptor positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) often require palliative radiation therapy (RT) while receiving systemic treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). There are conflicting reports in the literature regarding whether concurrent administration of CDK4/6i and RT increases RT or hematologic toxicity and there are currently no formal guidelines for this realm. A Canadian national survey was conducted to evaluate local practice patterns of CDK4/6i management during palliative RT. Methods: An anonymized online survey was distributed to 162 Canadian breast cancer health care professionals between November 2020 and January 2021. The survey collected provider demographics and questions regarding practice, experiences and opinions on CDK4/6i management during palliative RT for ABC. Results: The survey was completed by 76 (47%) of the invited participants: 40% were medical oncologists, 26% radiation oncologists, 16% pharmacists and 18% nurses, physician assistants or radiation therapists. Nine provinces were represented. The respondents' clinical practice settings were predominantly at an academic/cancer centre (84%), while 16% of clinicians were based at a community setting. Interrupting the CDK4/6i during RT was recommended always by 21% of respondents, sometimes by 46% and never by 9%, while 24% had no opinion. The majority of opinions were based on personal experience (55%), colleagues’ practice (37%), medical literature (33%) and experience with chemotherapy agents (18%). Unexpected RT toxicity observed in patients on concomitant CDK4/6i was reported by 9% of respondents and prolonged cytopenias by 15%. Among responders who always or sometimes interrupt CDK4/6i during palliative RT, the timeframe to hold CDK4/6i prior to RT was 4-7 days 45%, 1-3 days 32%, 8-14 days 13% and 10% were unsure. Responses were similar for the timeframe used to resume the drug after RT. The majority (94%) thought that advising the patient on what to do with the CDK4/6i during RT was the role of the Medical Oncologist, while 48% also thought it was the role of the Radiation Oncologist. 23% of respondents though the patient should always be reassessed prior to restarting the CDK4/6i; 45% said sometimes, and 29% said not necessary. 82% of respondents indicated a standardized protocol or guideline would be valuable in this setting. Conclusions: Two thirds of Canadian breast cancer specialists sometimes or routinely interrupt CDK4/6i treatment during RT with 15% having observed increased toxicity with concurrent administration. Consensus guidelines for the management of CDK4/6i and RT are necessary to reduce treatment variability and improve the quality and safety of care for these patients.
The evolution of the education module for men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in the prostate cancer supportive care (PCSC) program.
Authors: Rauw Jennifer Marie , Parimi Sunil , Ivanov Nikita , Noble Jessica , Wu Eugenia , Sundar Monita , Goulart Jennifer , Higano Celestia S. 
Published: September 2021

279 Background: The PCSC Program was initiated in 2013 at the Vancouver Prostate Centre to provide a comprehensive program for patients and partners with prostate cancer. This program provides educational sessions (ES) and clinical services, including decision-making for primary therapy, sexual health, pelvic floor physiotherapy, hormone therapy, counseling, exercise, and nutrition for patients in BC, Canada. In 2016, the PCSC Program expanded to BC Cancer Victoria and in 2017 to other BC Cancer sites. In 2018, medical oncologists (MDs) in Victoria (JR, SP) developed an Education Module addressing treatment options for men with metastatic hormone sensitive (mHSPC) and metastatic castration resistant (mCRPC) disease. MDs delivered in-person ES in Victoria in 2018 and, in 2019, added a virtual platform (VP) option. From 3-5/2020, the ESs were on hold due to the COVID pandemic and parental leaves. In 6/2020, the ESs resumed only on VP, and the PCSC Oncology Nurse Practitioner (NP), NI, gave the presentations for the MDs on leave. In 10/2020, due to a changing standard of care for mHSPC, the PCSC team consolidated the two ESs into one. We report on the evolution of this Education Module in response to both the changing standard of care and the COVID pandemic. Methods: We prospectively collected attendance and patient characteristic metrics from all ES for men with mPC. We tracked presenter type (MD vs. NP) and prospectively collected anonymous patient satisfaction questionnaires. Results: From 1/2018 to 1/2021, 100 men registered for 27 ES; 81 men, 41 partners, and 2 family members actually attended. 48/75 (64%) men were white, 39/75 (52%) retired, and 56/75 (74.7%) married. 47 men attended 12 mHSPC ES, 13 men attended ten mCRPC ES, and 17 attended four consolidated ES. MDs presented 15 ES, and the NP presented 12 ES. Responses to questions on 70 satisfaction surveys were similar for MD vs. NP presenters. 9 responders to the recently added VP-specific questions said they agreed (4) or strongly agreed (5) that it was beneficial to watch the ES at home on a computer. The Table below shows attendance per site per year. Conclusions: The ESs for men with mPC were well-received. Although there was a VP option before COVID, attendance increased significantly after the lockdown as patients and providers became more familiar with VPs. Satisfaction surveys confirmed that an NP could deliver the ES rather than MD. Consolidation of the mHSPC and mCRPC ES reflected the changing standard of care and resulted in more efficient use of presenter time. Virtual delivery of the sessions provided greater access to those living in distant or remote areas of the province and those in lockdown during the COVID pandemic. [Table: see text]
Feasibility of a child life specialist program for oncology patients with minor children at home: Demand and implementation.
Authors: Lysecki David , Bainbridge Daryl , Akitt Tracy , Georgiou Georgia , Meyer Ralph M. , Sussman Jonathan 
Published: September 2021

28 Background: Up to 24% of adult oncology patients have minor children at home. Children may experience emotional problems, somatic complaints, social isolation, depression, and post-traumatic stress as a result. Typical support networks often fail to meet the needs of these families. To address this gap, an innovative Child Life Specialist (CLS) program for patients with minor children at home was offered at a tertiary oncology center. Methods: To understand the feasibility of this program, we examined the demand for and implementation of the CLS program over its initial 10 months. Demand was characterized using administrative data (referred patient/family demographics, referral details, and disease/treatment characteristics). Implementation was described through encounter data (audience, type of visit, interventions provided, time for preparation, and time of direct interaction for each encounter). Results: The program received 100 referrals, 93 of whom accessed the program. Patients were most often female (66%) with a median age of 45 years (range: 19 to 72). 81% were parents of minor children, 10% grandparents, and 9% other. Families predominantly had multiple children (98%), most commonly school-aged (ages 5-9, 39%; 10-14, 37%). 53% of families had two birth parents co-parenting in the same household; the remainder had alternate parent/living scenarios. Most referrals came from social work (57%). Median time from diagnosis to referral was 79 days (range: 9d-6.5y). Breast cancer (26%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by gastrointestinal (19%) and hematologic (16%). Cancer phase at referral was defined as at new diagnosis (within 30d, 18%), undergoing treatment with curative intent (20%), undergoing treatment with palliative intent (39%), at end of life (within 30d, 16%) and after death/bereavement (5%). 1 patient (1%) did not have cancer. The CLS recorded 257 unique encounters. 55% of encounters included patients, 40% non-patient parents, 21% children, and 21% others. 75% were individual encounters, while 25% were group encounters. 95% of encounters that included children also included an adult. Phone calls were the most frequent encounter type (43%), but hospital visits consumed the largest proportion of recorded CLS time (38%). Mean encounter time (all visit types) included 20min for preparation and 51min of direct interaction. CLS interventions included: guidance on talking with children (67% of encounters), providing resources (37%), diagnostic teaching (21%), end-of-life support (18%), discussing change in status (10%), grief (8%), and emotional expression (4%). Conclusions: This study characterized the demand for this program and described its implementation over the pilot period. This period occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, which dramatically altered healthcare and family visitation, likely influencing the results of this study.
Real-world treatment patterns of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients receiving epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs).
Authors: Shenolikar Rahul , Liu Sizhu , Tse Jenny , Cao Yao , Near Aimee 
Published: September 2021

289 Background: Among mNSCLC patients positive for EGFR mutation (EGFRm), first-line (1L) treatment with an EGFR TKI is recommended for best outcomes. This study describes real-world treatment patterns of mNSCLC patients using EGFR TKIs in the 1L setting, including osimertinib, the most recently approved EGFR TKI for 1L use. Methods: Patients with ≥1 claim for an EGFR TKI (1st generation [1G]: gefitinib, erlotinib; 2nd generation [2G]: afatinib, dacomitinib; 3rd generation: osimertinib) from January 1, 2015 – April 30, 2020 were identified in IQVIA’s prescription (LRx) and medical claims (Dx) databases; first date of EGFR TKI was the index date. Patients had 12-month baseline period before index, variable follow-up after index, ≥1 lung cancer diagnosis on index or in baseline, and earliest metastatic cancer diagnosis on or 90 days before index. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate 1L treatment duration, where treatment discontinuation was defined as >60-day gap in medication supply of the index EGFR TKI. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were stratified by 1L EGFR TKI. Results: Overall, 2,505 mNSCLC patients received 1L EGFR TKI (982 osimertinib, 1,060 1G, 463 2G). Median ages were 66-69 years, 64.6-67.1% were female, and 32.4-38.9% had central nervous system metastases on or before index. Most patients were commercially insured (50.8-62.9%), 35.3-45.9% had Medicare, and 0.6-3.3% had other payer types. Nearly all patients had 1L EGFR TKI monotherapy (97.6-99.7%). 1L treatment duration was longer for osimertinib compared to 1G or 2G EGFR TKI (median months, 17.8, 8.7, 10.5 respectively). 2L treatment was observed in 32.5% of 1G and 36.3% of 2G EGFR TKI cohorts. Osimertinib monotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy (monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy) accounted for 58.3%, 7.0%, and 4.3% of 2L treatments after 1L 1G EGFR TKI, respectively, and 60.7%, 4.2%, and 4.8% of 2L treatments after 1L 2G EGFR TKI. Conclusions: In real-world practice, 1L treatment duration is longer with osimertinib compared with other EGFR TKIs. Future studies with longer follow-up are recommended to understand treatment patterns after progression on EGFR TKIs, mainly osimertinib, given its recent approval.
Mobile-health tool for timely management of cancer treatment toxicity.
Authors: Sanyal Amit , Mistretta Sara , Fulton Morgan , Janssen Clemens walter 
Published: September 2021

321 Background: Treatment related side effects after chemotherapy are common, with significant toxicities seen in 78.2% to 98.3% of patients allocated to two study arms of a lymphoma trial [1]. While most oncology clinics provide patient education before treatment, onetime delivery of large amounts of information without reiteration of crucial facts results in information gaps, delay in seeking care, culminating in potentially avoidable ED visits and hospitalizations. Technology based symptom monitoring can facilitate early detection of complications, reduce symptom burden and cost of care. Here we update our study [2] of utility of a mobile-health tool for timely management of cancer treatment related toxicities in a community-based oncology practice. Methods: A web-based mobile application consisting of a patient interface, a provider interface and an embedded analytic platform was developed. Patient ‘check-ins’ incorporating a brief introduction and chemotherapy toxicity questionnaires are delivered through automated text or email. Toxicity questionnaires are based on the NCI-PRO-CTCAE ITEMS-ENGLISH form builder. The provider interface incorporates a ‘patient records summary’ page and a ‘tracker’ page, allowing the oncology care team to monitor responses in real-time. Responses exceeding pre-specified thresholds generate a color-coded ‘flag’ and are marked for follow up. Flags result in a phone call followed by in-person evaluation if necessary. All interventions are time stamped. Patient experience is measured concurrently using a Likert-scale as well as free-text response box. Results: 310 patients were enrolled as of January 21, 2021. Median age was 64 years. There were 49% females.8916 check-ins were sent out and 2963 responses recorded for an overall response rate of 33.23%. 531 responses provided by 109 unique patients were flagged for follow up, amounting to 6% of all responses. Fatigue was the most common symptom flagged for follow-up (454), followed by nausea/vomiting or diarrhea (167), abdominal pain (140), cough/dyspnea (140) and numbness/tingling (138). Follow up was prompt, with 60% of patient symptoms followed up on the same day and of these, 84% followed-up within 4 hours of patient reported symptom. Patient experience was consistently favorable. 72% of patients reported an experience score of ≥ 4 (1-5 scale, 5 being the most favorable). Conclusions: Electronic capture of symptoms using connected technology is feasible and can be used for timely management of treatment related complications. References: Bartlett, N.L., et al., Dose-Adjusted EPOCH-R Compared With R-CHOP as Frontline Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Clinical Outcomes of the Phase III Intergroup Trial Alliance/CALGB 50303. J Clin Oncol, 2019. 37(21): p. 1790-1799. Sanyal, A. Mobile health tool for monitoring cancer treatment complications. 2020. ASCO Quality Care Symposium: American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Overall survival following implementation of clinical pathways for cancer care.
Authors: Ojha Rohit P. , Lu Yan , Narra Kalyani , Meadows Rachel J. , Gehr Aaron , Mantilla Emmanuel , Ghabach Bassam 
Published: September 2021

328 Background: Clinical pathways are decision support tools designed to enhance accessibility and ease of use of treatment recommendations. Prior studies that evaluated cancer clinical pathways largely focused on process measures such as concordance with treatment guidelines, but little evidence is available about the effect of clinical pathways on survival. We thus aimed to evaluate the effect of cancer clinical pathways on overall survival. Methods: We used institutional registry data from the JPS Oncology and Infusion Center, which is a Comprehensive Community Cancer Program. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with first primary breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between December 2013 and December 2017 with follow-up through June 2020. We used a natural experiment framework, where intervention was implementation of clinical pathways (December 2015). The pre-intervention period was December 2013 – November 2015 and post-intervention period was January 2016 – December 2017. We used marginal structural models with stabilized inverse probability weights for each cancer type to estimate restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences and 95% confidence limits (CL) comparing overall survival between pre- and post-clinical pathways within a 36-month horizon, where weights were based on a minimal sufficient set of covariates (sociodemographics, tumor characteristics, and comorbidities) to reduce confounding bias. Results: Our study population comprised 327 breast, 254 colorectal, and 431 lung cancer patients. Median age ranged between 55 years (breast) and 60 years (lung). The frequency of racial/ethnic minorities ranged between 45% (lung) and 68% (colorectal). The frequency of uninsured patients ranged between 47% (lung) and 58% (colorectal). Adherence to pathways was consistently over 80%. RMST was largely similar between pre- and post-clinical pathways for breast (RMST difference = -0.10 months, 95% CL: -1.9, 1.7), colorectal (RMST difference = -0.48 months, 95% CL: -3.4, 2.5) and lung cancer (RMST difference = 1.1 month, 95% CL: -1.5, 3.7). Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of clinical pathways has minimal effect on overall survival within 36 months despite high adherence in a safety-net population, but the estimates are compatible with up to 3.4 month decrease or 3.7 month increase depending on cancer type. Longer follow-up, particularly for breast and colorectal cancer, may provide further insight. Our findings may be useful for informing deliberations about implementing clinical pathways and setting expectations about the effect of clinical pathways on overall survival.
Improving palliative care integration for patients with stage IV lung cancer at UConn Health by initiating a best practice advisory (BPA) in the electronic medical record (EMR).
Authors: Loschiavo Sarah , Holle Lisa , Guarino Carolyn , Kalish Ruth , Coppola Cheryl , Thibodeau Wendy 
Published: September 2021

331 Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) practice updates on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology practice provides a key recommendation that patients with advanced cancer should receive palliative care services. Specifically, ASCO recommends that all patients with stage IV cancer receive a referral to an interdisciplinary palliative care team early in their course of disease and within 8 weeks of diagnosis. At UConn Health, it has been previously documented that only 28% of patients with stage IV cancer receive a referral to the palliative care team. To improve the quality of cancer care, a BPA with standardized criteria for palliative care referral was developed and implemented for patients with stage IV lung cancer. In this pilot study, the goal was to get 80-90% of patients a referral to palliative care team within 8 weeks of stage IV lung cancer diagnosis. Methods: The Model for Improvement using Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles was completed: 1) created an EMR report to identify patients with stage IV lung cancer; 2) completed a retrospective review of patients with stage IV lung cancer referred to palliative care 6 months prior to BPA implementation; 3) created and implemented BPA; 4) educated providers about palliative care referral and BPA; 5) retrospectively reviewed referrals 6 months following BPA implementation; and 6) evaluated potential barriers. The palliative care EMR BPA was developed in collaboration with information technology specialists. The BPA alert populates the EMR when the provider opens a patient chart or visit encounter for all patients with 1) diagnosis of lung cancer; 2) stage IV disease; and 3) does not have a current order for palliative care referral. Results: Prior to BPA implementation (January 1, 2020- July 31, 2020), 8 of 28 patients (32%) with stage IV lung cancer were referred to palliative care service. The BPA became active on 9/15/2020. Within the six months following BPA implementation, 16 patients were newly diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer. Of these 16 patients, 81% of them had a referral to palliative care made within 8 weeks of clinical staging. Several barriers were identified with current process, including lack of staging tool use by all providers; lack of documentation of all data required for staging tool to automatically calculate stage, and inability to track patients who declined palliative care appointment. Conclusions: Incorporating a BPA reminding providers to consider a palliative care referral improved referrals of patients with newly diagnosed stage IV lung cancer to the palliative care clinic within 8 weeks of diagnosis, improving compliance with ASCO’s practice guidance on integration of palliative care. Next steps are to address barriers and expand the use of palliative care referral BPA to all patients with stage IV cancer.