bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Physician-level variation in axillary surgery in older adults with T1N0 hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.
Authors: Minami Christina Ahn , Jin Ginger , Freedman Rachel A. , Schonberg Mara A. , King Tari A. , Mittendorf Elizabeth A. 
Published: September 2022

284 Background: Randomized controlled trial data support safe omission of axillary surgery in patients >70 years old with T1N0 hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, but utilization of axillary surgery in the U.S. remains > 80%. We sought to assess the proportion of variance in axillary surgery receipt that is attributable to surgeon-level differences vs. patient level differences, and assess the patient- and surgeon-level factors that affect axillary surgery receipt in this population. Methods: Women >70 years old with T1N0 HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer diagnosed from 2013-2015 in SEER-Medicare were linked to surgeon-level data from the American Medical Association Masterfile. Patients of low-volume surgeons (surgeons treating < 5 patients in this population over the study period) were excluded. To assess patient-and surgeon-level factors associated with axillary surgery receipt, we estimated hierarchical logistic regression models regressing receipt of axillary surgery on surgeon-specific random intercepts (null model). We then re-estimated this model including patient factors (age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and a validated claims-based frailty index). Our final model included other surgeon-, patient-, and disease-level factors. The intracluster correlation (ICC) was used to estimate the proportion of total variance in the outcome attributable to the surgeon level. Results: Of 4,410 women included, 58.3% were >75 years old, 20.7% were frail, and 13.9% had a CCI>2; 86.1% of women underwent axillary surgery. Of 432 surgeons represented, 52.6% were female and 9.5% identified as surgical oncologists. In the null model, 10.5% of the variance in the axillary evaluation was attributable to the surgeon-level, with 89.5% attributable to patient-level differences (Table). Adjusting for key patient-level variables (age, CCI, and frailty status) reduced unexplained patient-level variance, resulting in a greater proportion of total unexplained variance attributable to the surgeon level (13%). In our final model, physician subspecialty and years in practice were non-significant, but patients of female surgeons were less likely to undergo axillary surgery (OR 0.69, 95% CI [0.51-0.95]). Conclusions: In older women with T1N0 HR+ disease, patient-level differences reassuringly account for most of the variation in receipt of axillary surgery. Drivers of residual patient-level variation may include unmeasured factors such as differences in surgeon-patient communication and patient preferences.[Table: see text]
Evaluation of a virtual, nurse practitioner–led, pre-counselling seminar for mainstream germline genetic testing using a patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM).
Authors: Rauw Jennifer Marie , Barnhardt Laurie , Lockyer Heather 
Published: September 2022

290 Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a common, often fatal disease where 1/4 of cases are due to hereditary syndromes. Genetic screening of OC patients provides access to targeted treatments and screening recommendations. Patients are currently referred to a virtual, group, pre-counseling seminar, delivered by a Nurse Practitioner, where consent for germline genetic testing is obtained and results are delivered later by a Genetic Counsellor (GC). Previously, we found group pre-counseling to be an effective method to decrease wait times from diagnosis to test results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient seminar experience using the previously validated, Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24). BC Cancer- Victoria is a satellite of BC Cancer, providing tertiary cancer care to a population of ̃1.2 million. Methods: We completed a REB approved, prospective study recruiting patients referred to the group pre-counseling consenting seminar. The GCOS-24 was delivered electronically both pre (1) and post (2) attendance at the seminar, and 4 weeks post genetic counselling visit (3). Inclusion criteria included OC patients referred for germline BRCA testing between Jan 1, 2021, to Feb 28, 2022, > 18 years old who attended the group consenting seminar. Patients who could not communicate in English were excluded. Data was stored electronically via REDCap, a secure web-based platform. Results: Thirty-eight patients attended the seminar and 28 consented to participate and completed the first questionnaire. Twenty-five patients completed the second questionnaire and 21 completed the third. The average age was 67, with 80% high grade serous, 11% low grade, 6% clear cell and 3% endometrioid OC subtypes. Forty- nine percent of participants were from Victoria area, and 11% were 225+ km away. The average GCOS-24 score for pre seminar participants was 111, post seminar 121 and post GC’s appointment 124. Twelve (52%) patients scored minimum clinically important difference (MCID) increase between questionnaires 1 and 2, and 14 (67%) patients scored MCID increase between questionnaires 1 and 3. The questions reflecting the most improvement in average scores between questionnaires 1 and 3 were exploring knowledge and emotions. Conclusions: Virtual group pre-counseling sessions for OC patients are feasible and allow germline genetic testing access to a geographically diverse group of eligible patients. Mean GCO-24 score almost reached MCID between pre seminar and post seminar visit and did reach MCID between pre counselling and post GC visit. There was a general trend to improved scores as patients moved from counselling naïve to pre-counseling to completed GC appointment. Virtual pre-counseling seminars should be considered as high impact, resource light method of improving access to germline genetic counselling for OC patients.
Impact of acute toxicities associated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Authors: Patrick Donald , McManus Shauna , Podger Lauren , Saunders Ashley , Braverman Julia , Liu Fei Fei , Keating Scott J. 
Published: September 2022

294 Background: TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044) evaluated efficacy and safety of the CAR T cell therapy lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) as third-line or later treatment in patients with R/R LBCL. Prior research demonstrated improvements in HRQOL with liso-cel; however, evidence of HRQOL in the context of CAR T cell‒specific adverse events was not evaluated. In TRANSCEND, the incidence of all-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NE) was 42% and 30%, respectively. This analysis examined longitudinal HRQOL in the presence of CRS and NEs among clinical responders. Methods: Patients in TRANSCEND who responded to liso-cel treatment (n = 137) were stratified into 3 groups: no CRS or NEs, either CRS or NEs but not both, and both CRS and NEs. HRQOL was evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-5L. Summary statistics and change from baseline (liso-cel infusion; CFBL) were calculated for each time point. Results: For liso-cel‒treated patients who responded to treatment and developed CRS, NEs, or both, clinically relevant QLQ-C30 functional (physical, role, and cognitive) and fatigue scores indicated a noticeable nadir (low point) around 1 month post-baseline after liso-cel infusion, followed by a trend toward restoration of baseline status, generally achieved by 2 months after baseline. The primary difference between CRS/NE subgroups appeared to be the extent of decline or depth of the nadir. Patients with no CRS or NEs after liso-cel infusion did not experience an initial decrease in HRQOL/increase in symptom severity and instead showed a trend toward improvement over time (Table; QLQ-C30 fatigue as an illustrative example). This was also observed for EQ-5D-5L index scores. Conclusions: These findings support the anecdotal clinical experience that CRS/NEs are not associated with any long-term detriment in overall HRQOL and indicate a need for discussion with patients before treatment and early symptom monitoring and management of CRS or NEs. Clinical trial information: NCT02631044. [Table: see text]
Supportive oncology care at home after discharge for patients with advanced cancer.
Authors: Lage Daniel E , Johnson Patrick Connor , Hornstein Shira , Neckermann Isabel , Schmelkin Alane , Grayzel Connor , Brown Patricia , McGrath Meghan , Shulman Eliza , Smith Melissa , Nipp Ryan David , El-Jawahri Areej 
Published: September 2022

295 Background: Patients with advanced cancer often experience frequent and prolonged hospitalizations, and the transition from hospital to home represents a critical period for these individuals, as they prefer to maximize time at home and avoid readmissions. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the post-discharge needs of recently hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot trial at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). We enrolled English-speaking adults with advanced solid tumors experiencing their second or later unplanned hospitalization, who were being discharged home without hospice services and residing within a 50 mile radius of MGH. The three-week intervention consisted of: 1) hospital in the home care model for proactive symptom assessment and management, including clinician visits to assess patients, draw labs, administer intravenous medications and hydration, and ensure optimal symptom management; 2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and 3) structured communication with the oncology team. The primary endpoint of the study was feasibility, defined as ≥60% of approached and eligible patients enrolling and ≥60% of participants completing daily symptom assessments. After intervention completion, patients rated the helpfulness and convenience of the intervention and symptom monitoring technology. Results: From 12/2021-6/2022, we enrolled 40 out of 66 approached patients (60.6% enrollment rate). Enrolled patients (median age = 58.5 years, 50% female, 75% white, 68% married, 50% gastrointestinal cancers) completed 93.8% of daily symptom assessments. 12 patients (30%) did not complete the intervention due to withdrawal (5), hospice transfer (4), or death (3). Among enrolled patients, 20.0% were enrolled in hospice and 15.4% died at 30 days after hospital discharge. In exit interviews, 100% and 75% rated the intervention and symptom monitoring as helpful, respectively. 83% of patients found the in-home monitoring technology convenient. Conclusions: We found that a three-week Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention is a feasible approach to providing post-discharge care for high acuity, seriously ill hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. These patients also found the intervention highly acceptable. Future studies will test the efficacy of the intervention for reducing hospital readmissions, improving symptom management and quality of life, and increasing days spent at home near the end of life. Clinical trial information: NCT04637035.
Remote triage and the oncology patient experience.
Authors: Hoegger Blake , Townsend Sydney , Ortega Lance , Mikan Sabrina Q. , Patt Debra A. , Books Holly 
Published: September 2022

297 Background: Investments in infrastructure to enhance care delivery are often partnered with practice participation in alternative payment model contracts and innovative care delivery models. Oncology nurses routinely are physically located in a cancer practice. We sought to understand the impact of centralizing resources to work remotely building upon triage pathways already in place on staffing and symptom call resolution with the goal of optimizing outpatient symptom management and patient satisfaction. Due to a national RN shortage and a historical high number of RN vacancies in oncology, we thought this this innovative staffing solution may attract, retain, and elevate the role of RNs. Methods: A needs assessment was conducted to evaluate call volumes, staff levels and duties. A gap analysis was performed to determine which duties would be assigned to remote triage versus in person staffing. Some sites had triage; all sites upgraded to new optimization of assessment and management. Standardized evidence based care and communication pathways were implemented. RNs were trained to follow structured workflows for call ticket resolution. A regional pool supported primary triage RNs who were assigned to each site. The model allowed for flexible staffing while building and maintaining relationships with local providers. Additionally, remote triage RNs were given the opportunity to augment their assessment with audio/visual telehealth as needed. Results: In the first 4 months, 9 pilot sites decreased symptom management time by 50%; 1 site decreased by 70% (over 120 minutes down to 27 minutes). Since remote triage began, average resolution times reduced from 2.52 hours to 1.31 hours. One pilot site had an in-person triage position posted and attracted 4 applicants over 4 weeks. When the position was converted to a remote role, 38 applications were received in 1 week. Offering remote triage positions allowed RN recruitment from other states and gave tenured RNs within the organization an attractive new work model. Conclusions: Remote RN work is an attractive opportunity for RNs allowing for broader recruitment of candidates. Removing triage RNs from the clinic site allows them to focus on triage resolution and as a result call resolution times decreased substantially. Standardized communication pathways were developed, rolled out, and optimized in both virtual and in-person Triage RN roles statewide. Adherence to these communication pathways is critical to ensuring timely symptom management resolution and a sustainable workforce.
Evaluation of initiatives including an EHR prompt (EP) and APP involvement to increase germline genetic testing compliance in a pancreatic cancer population.
Authors: Ronnen Rebecca , Carroll Rachel , Kiley Lauren , Cruz-Tanner Melissa , Montes Rosemary , Desai Sameer P. 
Published: September 2022

302 Background: Germline genetic testing is now recommended for all pancreas cancer patients (pts); identification of a BRCA1/2, ATM or PALB2 mutation can impact upfront and/or second line therapy. These mutations have been found in approximately 4-11% of prior reports of pancreatic cancer populations. Previous reports have found that genetic testing is done in a minority of patients, especially in private practice. This project assesses how two interventions on physician behavior can impact the frequency of germline genetic testing in pancreas cancer patients in a multi-office private practice setting. Methods: Retrospectively, we used algorithms in Flatiron’s OncoEMR to identify baseline germline genetic testing frequency in all pancreas cancer patients. In phase 1, we used an EP to communicate with doctors immediately before upcoming appts for their pancreas cancer pts. In phase 2, advanced practice providers (APPs) educated pancreas cancer patients about germline genetic testing and ordered the test ahead of the patients’ visits. Our primary endpoint was to determine the percentage of pancreas cancer patients who had germline genetic testing; our secondary endpoint was to determine frequency of BRCA/PALB2/ATM mutations. Results: Retrospectively, 82 pancreas cancer pts were identified from 6/1/2020 - 1/1/2021. 32 pts (39%) had germline genetic testing. Prospectively, in phase 1, 35 pts with pancreas cancer and upcoming appointments were identified between 6/28/2021 - 8/6/2021. 21 (60%) had previously had germline testing. Of 14 patients who had not had testing, the EP prompted additional testing of 7 (50%) pts. Of the total 35 pts in phase 1, 2 (5.7%) were found to have mutations. In phase II, 47 of 74 pts (63%) had previously had germline testing, and APP intervention resulted in 19 of 27 patients (70%) receiving germline testing, with 5 (6.7%) found to have BRCA1/2, PALB2 or ATM mutations of the 74 patients. Conclusions: Our results reveal that while APP education and ordering of germline genetic testing is slightly more effective than involving the doctors in the process, further improvement is needed. Utilizing the EMR when a diagnosis code is entered and then automating genetic counseling and ordering for these patients will be needed. Lastly, a team based approach with navigators involved in rounding will also improve testing frequency even with more automated testing. While our % of patients with an actionable mutation is low, given the options it opens for these patients, universal testing is still warranted.
Grading our quality: An academic and community cancer center dashboard.
Authors: Celmen Melis , Sato-DiLorenzo Aya , Chude-Sokei Rosemary , Kaplan Irving D. , Kent Michael S. , Malacaria Sheila , Vatulas Andrea , Zerillo Jessica Ann 
Published: September 2022

303 Background: Quality scorecards provide a high-level view of key performance metrics and guide data-driven decision making. Dashboards specific to cancer care have not been widely published. Our goal was to implement a quality dashboard to guide and monitor local improvement efforts at an academic and community cancer center. Methods: With the leadership of a Project Manager and Nursing and Physician Quality Directors of the Cancer Center, and input of key Cancer Center stakeholders, quality metrics across national organizations were evaluated. Metrics were chosen based on their ease of collection and their mapping to institutional priorities of clinical quality, patient safety, access, and financial stability. Additional internal measures and benchmarks were created to capture local improvement efforts. Numerous internal and third-party databases were accessed to extract, analyze and display our data. Additionally, a data dictionary was developed for the measure set. Results: Six months of data from fiscal year 2022 was collected, analyzed, and displayed on 10 core and 3 disease-specific measures for breast (B) and lung (L) cancers. (Breast and lung). As of 5/2022, the measures presented on the dashboard include new patient access, non-template chemotherapy orders, medication harm events, likelihood of recommending practice, preventable admissions and emergency department visits, inpatient mortality, and length of stay, readmission, survivorship care plan (B), return to operating room (L), and adequate lymph node sampling (L). These measures pertain to several of the Institute of Medicine’s domains of healthcare quality: effective, efficient, patient-centered, safe, and timely. Conclusions: Compiling data from multiple sources into a single dashboard may guide Cancer Center leadership in strategic planning and monitoring improvement for ongoing initiatives. The data will be updated quarterly. Future iterations will include more disease specific measures and attempts to build automatic data extraction.
Standardization of data collection in the initial medical history: Implementation of an improvement plan in an oncology department.
Authors: Gómez-Randulfe Rodríguez Martín Igor , Alonso-Jáudenes Curbera Guillermo , Alonso de Castro Beatriz , Silva Diaz Sofia , Parajó Vázquez Iria , Campelo Rosario Garcia 
Published: September 2022

306 Background: Non-standardized data collection in medical records has a negative impact on the quality of care: it increases the possibility of medical errors, hinders the performance of clinical studies, precludes the development of improvement plans and impedes accreditation in quality-of-care programs. The ASCO QOPI (Quality Oncology Practice Initiative) certification program accredits the quality of care of oncology departments through a self-assessment process. An overall quality score (OQS) above 75% on 26 measures that focus on quality of care and patient safety is required for application. In order to begin the certification process, we analysed the quality of the data collected in our initial medical history to implement improvement actions. Methods: Based on the 26 QOPI measures, plus 17 additional measures that were chosen by consensus as relevant, we performed a retrospective baseline analysis of the data collected in the initial medical history of patients assessed in June 2021. Patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer and non-small cell lung carcinomas who initiated systemic treatment were included. Those who participated in clinical trials were excluded. The OQS of the 26 patients analyzed was 59%. Given this negative result, and once the problem was identified, the objective was established (OQS > 75%), changes were prioritized and an improvement plan was developed based on rounds of training, feedback and reinforcement to the entire medical team, and through the design of a template with the essential data to be collected. Results: With the baseline result of June 2021 (n = 26; OQS = 59%), improvement rounds were performed in November 2021 (n = 29; OQS = 82%), December 2021 (n = 26; OQS = 74%), January 2002 (n = 35; OQS = 75%), February 2022 (n = 32; OQS = 78%) and March 2022 (n = 31; OQS = 79%). Conclusions: Correct data collection in medical records is essential for quality of care. Simple short-term measures based on training, feedback and reinforcement, and the creation of a data template, have increased OQS from 59% to exceed the 75% threshold required by QOPI to apply for the certification program. However, a long-term sustainable plan needs to be established through the introduction of computerized checklists in the free-text electronic medical history.