"Clinical trials are space travel": Factors of psychological response to recurrence among oncologists enrolling patients in treatment optimization trials

BACKGROUND

Cancer recurrence after treatment is a concern for patients and oncologists alike. The movement towards treatment optimization, with trials testing less than the current standard of care (SoC), complicates this experience. Our objective was to assess oncologists' psychological response to patient recurrence on optimization-focused trials and identify factors that influence those experiences.

METHODS

Clinical oncologists participated in a semi-structured interview regarding patient enrollment in treatment optimization trials. We identified factors that influence the degree of psychological response that the oncologist may feel after patient recurrence. Residual agreement analysis was used to identify whether differences in reported psychological response was associated with alternative emphases on identified factors.

RESULTS

Thirty-six oncologists identified 20 factors spanning five major themes that affected their psychological response to patient recurrence. All oncologists expressed willingness to enroll patients in treatment optimization clinical trials; however, half indicated that they were more likely to experience a negative psychological response after a treatment optimization trial than after a traditional intensification trial, and a quarter reported that patient recurrence on an optimization trial would impact their recommendations for future trial enrollment. Oncologists who reported more negative psychological responses to patient recurrence after participation in an optimization trial were more likely to emphasize introspective factors, while those who reported no difference in response emphasized patient- and process-focused factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most oncologists recognize the importance of treatment optimization trials, a significant proportion indicated a greater potential for psychological distress following patient recurrence in such trials and offered insight into how trial design and the process of patient enrollment can be improved to minimize those negative psychological responses.

Enhancing Efficiency and Reach Using Facebook to Recruit Breast Cancer Survivors for a Telephone-Based Supportive Care Randomized Trial During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

Evidence supporting social media-based recruitment of cancer survivors is limited. This paper describes how we used Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic to augment our recruitment of breast cancer survivors for our two-site telephone-based randomized clinical trial (RCT) at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

METHODS

Originally a two-site RCT of a telephone-delivered breast cancer survivorship intervention, we extended our clinic-based recruitment to Facebook. Participant characteristics, geographic reach, and baseline outcomes were compared across recruitment sources (ie, two clinics and Facebook) using descriptive statistics and effect sizes.

RESULTS

Enrollment rates (20%-29%) were comparable across recruitment sources. The 21-month Facebook marketing campaign accounted for 59% (n = 179/303) of our total sample and had the greatest geographic reach, recruiting women from 24 states. The Facebook campaign reached a total of 51,787 unique individuals and cost $88.44 in US dollars (USD) per enrolled participant. Clinic samples had a greater proportion of women who were widowed (8% v 1%; P = .03) and Facebook had a higher proportion of women with a household income over $40,000 USD (83% v 71%; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences between Facebook and the two clinics on baseline survey scores.

CONCLUSION

Augmenting traditional recruitment with Facebook increased our RCT's geographic and sociodemographic reach and supported meeting recruitment goals in a timely way. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer survivorship researchers should consider using social media as a recruitment strategy while weighing the advantages and potential biases introduced through such strategies.

Abstract P6-09-04: Oncologist-reported Barriers and Facilitators to enrolling patients in optimization trials that test less intense cancer treatment

Background: As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could impact accrual to optimization clinical trials and about the generalizability of future findings. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Forty-six physicians were approached from 3/31/21-11/5/21; 39 oncologists from different oncology practices across 17 states completed interviews, 7 either declined or did not respond to email requests. Physician characteristics were balanced: men vs. women (49% vs 51%) and community oncologist vs. academic oncologist (49% vs 51%); and time practicing as medical oncologist (31% 0-9 years; 33% 10-19 years; 36% 20+ years). All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists reported the need for treatment optimization, with one oncologist noting “historically, we’ve given way too much treatment to patients.” Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. They included quality of life improvement by reducing toxicity; reduction in financial toxicity; fertility preservation; ability to avoid chemotherapy; minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions; personalized treatment; opportunities to test novel therapies; and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. At the same time, there was hesitancy amongst some oncologists with this approach, “All my life I’ve worked to try to improve things and so I am not totally philosophically comfortable with the notion that I’m going to be happy with a result that says, we haven’t improved it but we can get by with less.” In addition, oncologists also identified accrual barriers, like tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors (e.g. disease characteristics, patient demographics, patient psychological state, patient preferences), prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support communication about and enrollment in optimization trials. Conclusions: While optimization clinical trials are generally accepted to be beneficial by oncologists, barriers impact their acceptance. Scientifically robust design and education to overcome barriers are needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy based on risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

Citation Format: Gabrielle B. Rocque, Andrews Courtney, Rachel M. Frazier, Lawhon Valerie, Stacey A. Ingram, Mary Lou Smith, Lynne I. Wagner, Lisa Zubkoff, Nadine Tung, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff. Oncologist-reported Barriers and Facilitators to enrolling patients in optimization trials that test less intense cancer treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-04.

Abstract P6-05-54: "Clinical Trials are Space Travel": Moderators of Recurrence Stress among Breast Cancer Oncologists

Background: Being an oncologist means accepting that some patients will have disease recurrence despite the most expert treatments. The universality of that experience, however, does not negate the potential for decisional regret and emotional distress on the part of the physician. The broad scale movement towards treatment optimization in medicine likely complicates this experience, as enrollment in de-escalation clinical trials inevitably means that the patient will receive less than the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to assess physician perceptions of potential emotional distress and decisional regret following patient recurrence through exploring the broad range of factors that either moderate or exacerbate those experiences. Methods: Physicians who treat breast cancer in academic and community settings across the United States participated in a qualitative interview designed to assess physician perspectives regarding patient enrollment in de-escalation clinical trials. Purposive sampling techniques were utilized to construct a balanced sample (sex, time in practice) of 39 participants. A subsection of the interview schedule centered on the experiences of decisional regret and distress surrounding patient recurrence. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in order to identify shared themes. Two independent coders performed a content analysis, identifying and recording factors that impact the level of distress that the physician may feel. Results: Thirty-six physicians provided in depth responses regarding their experience when a patient recurs. A total of 21 factors that affected recurrence stress were identified and spanned broad categories including patient features, disease biology, the design of the clinical trial, and characteristics of the physician. All participants expressed willingness to enroll patients in de-escalation-focused clinical trials. However, approximately half of the sample indicated that the experience would be worse after enrollment in a de-escalation trial than after a traditional intensification trial, and a quarter admitted that patient recurrence after a de-escalation trial would impact their decision making regarding future patient enrollment. Individuals not likely to experience distress emphasized having a strong trial rationale, informed patient consent, and engaging in shared decision-making, while greater distress centered on the fear of “not doing enough” and the patient missing out on necessary treatment. Conclusions: Many factors contribute to the experience of physician decisional regret and emotional distress after patient recurrence. Although most physicians recognize the importance of de-escalation focused clinical trials, a significant proportion indicated a greater potential for distress following patient recurrence in such trials and offered insight into how trial design and the process of patient enrollment can be improved to minimize potential distress.

Citation Format: Nicole L. Henderson, Andrews Courtney, Lawhon Valerie, Stacey A. Ingram, Lisa Zubkoff, Nadine Tung, Lynne Wagner, Lauren P. Wallner, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. "Clinical Trials are Space Travel": Moderators of Recurrence Stress among Breast Cancer Oncologists [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-54.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Enrolling Patients in Optimization Trials That Test Less Intense Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could affect accrual to optimization clinical trials and the generalizability of future findings.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders used a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. These included quality-of-life improvement by reducing toxicity, reduction in financial toxicity, fertility preservation, ability to avoid chemotherapy, minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions, personalized treatment, opportunities to test novel therapies, and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. Oncologists also identified accrual barriers, such as tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors, prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support enrollment in optimization trials.

CONCLUSION

Although oncologists are generally willing to enroll patients on optimization clinical trials, barriers affect their acceptance. A scientific focus on overcoming these barriers is needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy on the basis of risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

Adaptation of Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Implementation in Real-World Settings

PURPOSE

Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers.

METHODS

This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman's Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (phase I) and workflow (phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semistructured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation.

RESULTS

Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility.

CONCLUSION

Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.

Physician Perspectives on Reducing Curative Cancer Treatment Intensity for Populations Underrepresented in Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials.

METHODS

Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that "biology is biology" (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient's lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03248258.

Identification of target population in the implementation of navigator-delivered home ePRO for patients with cancer receiving treatment

351

Background: One key challenge of practice transformation activities, such as remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), is identification of patients starting treatment. In real-world settings, reliance on referrals is likely to miss patients. We describe the difficulties encountered in patient identification and the subsequent changes implemented in protocol to remediate this. Methods: We conducted two PDSA cycles focused on identification and engagement of patients for RSM at the Mitchel Cancer Institute (MCI). Target patient capture was > 75%. Modifications to the patient identification process were documented. Schedules of physicians participating in the RSM program were reviewed from 6/2021 – 5/2022 to identify eligible patients. Patients were considered eligible if they were starting chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. Patients seeking a second opinion were excluded. Patient demographics, cancer type, cancer stage, and PROs were abstracted from electronic health records and the PRO platform (Carevive). Initial clinic roll-out was conducted in gynecologic oncology, with expansion to breast and thoracic oncology in 10/2021 and 3/2022, respectively. The proportion of eligible patients approached per month was reported.Results: In the first PDSA cycle, the eligibility criteria was defined. Although clinical trials included advanced disease, non-clinical staff screening expressed concern about determining advanced vs. early-stage disease. Thus, inclusion criteria was broadened to include all patients starting treatments. From 6/2021 –8/2021, navigators identified patients by screening patients who presented for chemo-education visits. The navigation team approached 23 patients during this period. However, this process didn’t identify all eligible patients as not all patients beginning treatment received chemo-education visits. In PDSA Cycle 2, the process for new patient contact from initial call for appointment through treatment was reviewed. The implementation team screened all patients in a physician’s schedule a week prior to the office visit as well as on the day of visit. This updated process identified all eligible patients starting either intravenous or oral chemotherapy. The recruitment process was modified to screen the physician schedules rather than chemo educator visits. From 9/2022-5/22, the proportion of eligible patients identified and approached remained high at 100%. This methodological screening process helped the navigation team identify all eligible patients in an efficient manner and they reported comfort in expanding to additional disease teams. Conclusions: Systematic screening of physician schedules can be successfully leveraged for patient identification and reduce time spent manually screening for eligible patients by non-clinical navigators. Clinical trial information: NCT04809740.

Why aren’t more patients with breast cancer enrolled in clinical trials?

84

Background: Only 2-8% of adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials, likely due to strict exclusion criteria as well as financial and access issues. The primary objective of this study is to understand the population of patients with breast cancer who are and are not offered a clinical trial and the impact of exclusion criteria on enrollment. Methods: Inclusion and exclusion criteria from study protocols housed in OnCore and ClinicalTrials.gov were obtained for breast cancer-specific, therapeutic clinical trials open at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) from 2016 to 2020. Patients with breast cancer receiving oncology services at UAB from 2016 to 2020 were identified from electronic health records. Race and ethnicity and address were abstracted. Address was utilized to characterize patients as living in areas of higher vs. lower deprivation (Area Deprivation Index) and rural communities (Rural-Urban Commuting Area). Chart abstraction was conducted to assess if patients were offered a trial, eligible for a trial, reason for ineligibility, and enrollment in trial vs standard of care treatment. Results: 518 patients were included; 387 were offered a trial and 131 were not. The median age of patients offered a trial was 57 years old, whereas the median age of patients who were not offered a trial was 61. The majority of patients offered a trial were more often White (72% vs. 24% African American), resided in areas of lower disadvantage (70% vs 17% most disadvantaged), and urban residents (75% vs 13% rural). Of the 387 patients offered a trial, 319 (82%) enrolled, 34 (9%) declined enrollment and chose standard of care, and the remaining 34 (9%) were interested in enrollment but later found to be ineligible. Reasons for ineligibility of the 34 patients who were offered a trial included comorbidities (n = 9), tumor size (n = 7), metastases (n = 5), and previous cancer history (n = 4). Additionally, 9 patients were ineligible for miscellaneous reasons (abnormal labs, age, prescription, trial closed to accrual, tumor characteristics). Of the 131 patients that were not offered a clinical trial, 77 (59%) were ineligible for enrollment. Reasons for ineligibility included: stage 1 disease (n = 35), tumor size and characteristics (n = 24), and comorbidities and abnormal labs (n = 18). The remaining 54 patients would have been eligible, but their provider did not offer a clinical trial. Conclusions: Most patients who are offered a clinical trial are willing to participate; physicians not offering a trial to patients appears to be a driver for low enrollment. Strict exclusion criteria related to comorbidities limit trial participation. Further work is needed to understand the relative importance of these eligibility criteria in relation to validity. Efforts should be made to include patients in clinical trials that reflect the diverse patient population that will receive the drug in the future.

Sociodemographic difference in patients who enroll and decline remote symptom monitoring (RSM)

268

Background: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using patient-reported outcomes has been shown to reduce symptom burden and hospitalizations in clinical trials. However, little is known about how willing patients are to participate in remote symptom monitoring in real-world settings, particularly for vulnerable patient populations. This study aims to compare characteristics of cancer patients enrolled vs. patients who declined enrollment into RSM. Methods: This prospective study used data that assessed the characteristics of patients who enrolled vs. patients who declined enrollment into RSM. Inclusion criteria included participants’ age ≥18 with cancer who received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Race and ethnicity (Black or African American, White, Asian, other and unknown), sex, cancer type (breast, gastrointestinal [GI], genitourinary [GU], gynecological [GYNX], head and neck, leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, myeloma and other), urban/rural residence, Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and insurance type (Medicaid, Medicare, none, other and private) were abstracted from electronic medical records (EMR) and PRO platform (Carevive). Descriptive statistics were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Differences in enrollment status characteristics were calculated using measures of effect size such as Cramer’s V. Results: Of the 307 patients, two thirds of patients were female (71%); 25% were Black or African American and 66% were White patients; 15% lived in an area of higher disadvantage. For insurance, 46%, 26%, 10%, 8%, and 9% of patients had Private, Medicare, Medicaid, other insurance, and no insurance, respectively. The proportion of patients who declined enrollment was higher for males than females (22% vs. 10%), Black or African American than White (18% vs 13%); and having Medicare than private insurance (22% vs. 10%). Compared to those who enrolled, patients who declined enrollment were more often to be male (V:0.2), Black or African American (V:0.1); and have Medicare insurance (V:0.2). Patients enrolled vs. declined in RSM had similar ADI scores (V:0.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that potentially vulnerable patients, including Black patients and those with public insurance, have lower RSM engagement. Future analysis is needed to understand participation barriers and how to better engage diverse populations to ensure optimal healthcare delivery to all patients.

Adaptation of remote symptom monitoring using electronic patient-reported outcomes for implementation in real-world settings

272

Background: Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers. Methods: This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman’s Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (Phase I) and workflow (Phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semi-structured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation. Results: Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real-time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.

Nursing strategies to improve alert closure for remote symptom monitoring

421

Background: For successful remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes, nurses should respond to alerts in a timely fashion. Where clinical trials utilized research staff for alert management, the shift to standard-of-care delivery necessitates that this responsibility be added as a task to an already strained nursing workforce. Little is known about strategies to engage nurses to improve timeliness of alert management. Methods: In this quality improvement initiative, we aimed to improve timeliness of alert closures generated by moderate or severe symptoms within a remote symptom monitoring program. Optimal closure was defined as < 48 hours, which was consistent with institutional requirements for response to patient phone calls. A continuous quality improvement approach, with multiple Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles was conducted. Data was captured from the electronic medical record and PRO platform (Carevive). Descriptive statistics included frequencies and percentages. The proportion of alerts closed each month < 48 hours, 48-72 hours, 3-7 days, and > 7 days were reported overall and by disease team (i.e., major cancer types). Surveys not closed were considered > 7 days. The timing of strategies to improve nursing engagement were documented and evaluated for impact on alert closure. Results: From June 1, 2021-May 31, 2022, 1121 moderate or severe alerts were generated from 234 patients. Disease teams had variable remote symptom monitoring start dates: breast, leukemia, and limited gynecologic (prior to 6/2021); myeloma and gastrointestinal (7/2021); genitourinary (10/2021); head and neck (12/2021); melanoma (2/2022); and Lymphoma (4/2022). In 6/2021, the overall alert closure at < 48 hours, 48-72 hours, 3-7 days, and > 7 days was 57%, 4%, 14%, and 25% respectively (n = 28). To improve alert closures, several key strategies were deployed to improve alert closure times including disease-specific reporting and meetings with nursing leadership (10/2021); identification of a nurse champion, creation of “cheat sheets” to remind nurses how to close alerts, and individualized calls with nurses with open alerts (1/2022), and inclusions of requirement to close alerts in nursing newsletters (2/2022). Overall, alert closure less than 48 hours improved to 61% by 12/2021 (n = 97) and to 69% by 5/2022 (n = 167). Disease group alert closure varied, with higher closure more commonly in teams with greater duration of use, such as breast cancer team with an alert closure of 85% < 48 hours in May 2022. Conclusions: Key nursing engagement strategies improve alert closure for remote symptom monitoring programs implemented in real-world settings.

Physician perspectives on extrapolating data from trials testing less-intense treatment to underrepresented populations

521

Background: Clinical trials provide the foundation for evidence-based practices, yet trial participants are often not representative of all patients. Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, yet vulnerable patient groups are at risk for underrepresentation. Little is known about physician perspectives on implementing less intense treatment approaches for patients who are not represented in sufficient number to draw conclusions on subpopulations. Methods: Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists from different cancer centers exploring their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. One physician noted, “We've been extrapolating for as long as I can remember and certainly that I've been in practice; so we do need to do better there, but extrapolation is only natural with what we have.” Facilitators of comfort included sentiment that “biology is biology”, such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered; the strength of the evidence from the trial overall; inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations; and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included the potential harm over the patient’s lifetime; concerns about groups that had minimal participants; application specifically to younger patients; and extending findings to racially and ethnically diverse populations. Oncologists highlighted the need for shared decision-making when applying study results to underrepresented populations. They also expressed concerns about study findings being applied to patients who would have been ineligible in the original trials. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy is desired. Conclusions: The majority (92%) of physicians report that they would extrapolate clinical trial results to patients poorly represented in de-escalation trials, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations based on tumor characteristics (e.g. stage, biology) and patient demographics (e.g. age, race). Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial

Background

Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out.

Methods

This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint.

Discussion

This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models.

Trial registration

NCT04809740; date of registration 3/22/2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07914-6.

Exclusion criteria of breast cancer research protocols: A descriptive analysis

82

Background: Clinical trials play an important role in advancing cancer treatments. Unfortunately, only about 3% of adults with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial in the United States due to various barriers to enrollment. This includes restrictive eligibility criteria, which currently have no standard guidelines. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of eligibility criteria. Methods: This descriptive analysis utilized all therapeutic breast protocols offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) between 2004-2020. Exclusion criteria (e.g., laboratory values and comorbidities) were extracted from protocols using OnCore, an online dataset used to manage clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Laboratory values or vital signs analyzed included liver function tests, hematologic labs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and hypertension. Comorbid conditions included congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, presence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and history of prior cancer. Comorbid conditions were further analyzed by amount of time protocols required participants to be from initial diagnosis or exacerbation-free. Results: There were a total of 102 eligible protocols. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in exclusion criteria across liver/hematologic laboratory values and demographic/comorbidity variables. Among liver laboratory values, most protocols included an upper limit of acceptable for bilirubin (78%): 9% used the institutional upper limit of normal (ULN), 2% used 1.2xULN, 3% used 1.25xULN, 56% used 1.5xULN, 6% used 2xULN, and 2% used 3xULN. Similar variability was observed in protocols that included alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase. Among hematological labs, 82% of protocols defined a lower limit of acceptable absolute neutrophil count: 1% 500mcL, 11% used 1,000mcL, 4% used 1,200mcL, 1% used 1,250mcL, 64% used 1,500mcL, and 1% used 1,800mcL. Of the comorbid conditions, exclusion criteria varied for congestive heart failure (49%), an acute exacerbation of cardiovascular disease (80%), CNS metastases (59%) and a prior cancer (66%). While most protocols included cardiovascular disease, the allowable timeframe varied between protocols: 4% did not allow an acute exacerbation within the previous 3 months, 32% did not allow within the previous 6 months, 5% did not allow within the previous 12 months, and 38 % did not specify a time frame. Protocols including history of a prior cancer as a criterion similarly had varied definitions based on timeline. Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity was observed among clinical trial protocols. While exclusion criteria are necessary for patient safety, there is lack of evidence for current parameters. Future research should focus on defining standardized eligibility criteria while allowing for deviation based on drug specificity.

Patient responses to weekly electronic patient-reported outcomes

182

Background: Home-based symptom monitoring using patient reported outcomes has been shown to reduce symptom burden and hospitalizations, while improving quality of life and overall. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the early feasibility of home-based symptom monitoring. Methods: This prospective single-arm pilot study evaluated a two-part education and technology intervention (home-based symptom monitoring) for clinicians treating Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients. Inclusion criteria included patients ≥ 60 who were anticipating a treatment decision. Participants completed a baseline survey and then enrolled into the PROmpt® symptom monitoring platform, which used text or email to prompt weekly symptom surveys. Patients receive an auto-generated self-management plan based on electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO). If severe symptoms were reported (score of > 7/10), alerts were sent to clinical nurses. Outcomes for this study included proportion of patient approach who agreed to participate, patient completion rates (completion of weekly surveys), compliance rate (completion of total surveys), number of alerts generated, and type of alert. Feasibility was defined as a completion rate of > 70%. Results: Between September 1, 2020 –May 19, 2021; 114 patients were screened, 77 were approached, and 35 were enrolled (18) MM, (17) AML patients. Of non-participants, 11 were not seeking care at the institution, 10 patients were uninterested or did not have a smartphone, 9 patients were ineligible, and 9 were unsure and left with information about the study, 3 declined enrollment. The majority (80%) or participants were ages 60-74; 20% of patients were ages 75+. Over the 13-week period, AML patients completed 195/220 (compliance rate of 89%). The average completion rate was 92%. For MM, 192/233 surveys were completed (82% compliance rate). The average completion rate was 94%. For AML, 9 was the average number of completed surveys and the average number for MM was 8. Over 3 months, there were 294 moderate to severe alerts generated for AML and MM patients. For AML patients, there were 40 fatigue, 25 constipation, 21 pain, 17 decreased appetite, 11 insomnia, 11 rash, 6 anxiety, 7 dyspnea/cough, 7 diarrhea, 5 depression/sadness, 4 nausea/ vomiting, 4 mouth/ throat sores, 3 neuropathy, 3 fever, and 2 alerts for other symptoms. Within a 3 month time span for MM patients, there was 35 pain, 21 constipation, 18 fatigue, 11 rash, 10 neuropathy, 9 anxiety, 7 insomnia, 6 depression/sadness, 4 decreased appetite, 4 other symptom, and 1 nausea/vomiting alert. Conclusions: This study demonstrated early feasibility with over 80% of patient completing their surveys with a high compliance rate. Future analysis will include both final implementation outcomes as well as patient outcomes for all patients within the study.

Hesitancy and malignancy: Vaccine hesitancy among individuals with cancer

148

Background: The World Health Organization cited vaccine hesitancy as one of 2019’s top ten threats to global health, a threat that has been further exacerbated by COVID-19 pandemic. Existing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy research focuses on the general population, but less is known about the specific concerns of medically vulnerable populations, including individuals with cancer. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used data that assessed likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination (likely vs unlikely/unsure) among past or current patients with cancer from a nationwide survey administered in December 2020 by the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), a non-profit organization that provides case management and financial aid to patients diagnosed with a chronic illness. Inclusion criteria included previous or current cancer treatment, aged ≥ 19, and a valid e-mail address. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, and urban/rural residence were abstracted from the PAF database. Respondents self-reported education level, employment status, trust in media regarding COVID-19 pandemic, and media viewership on COVID-19 vaccine development. The Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale assessed respondents’ level of mistrust in medical providers based on ethnicity. Likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was evaluated using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust error variance. All variables were included in our model. Results: Of 429 respondents, 48% were unlikely/unsure about accepting the COVID-19 vaccine, primarily due to concerns about vaccine safety (32%) and worry about health conditions (12%). When compared to those likely to accept COVID-19 vaccine, respondents who were unlikely/unsure were more often Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (40% vs. 23%), aged 36-55 (40% vs. 29%), and female (80% vs. 65%). In adjusted analysis, Black respondents were 55% less likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine, when compared to White respondents (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.4-0.8). When compared to those who did not follow the media regarding COVID-19 vaccine development, those who followed the media very closely were 4.5 times more likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (RR 4.5; 95% CI 1.6-13.2). Respondents who reported below average trust in the media were 60% less likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5-0.8), compared to those who reported above average trust in the media. Conclusions: Despite being at high risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, a substantial proportion of under-resourced individuals with cancer were unlikely/unsure about vaccination, exposing a significant disconnect between risk of severe disease and vaccine acceptance. Our analysis also reveals a need to assess for and debunk misinformation to increase vaccine enthusiasm among medically vulnerable populations.

Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Given excellent survival outcomes in breast cancer, there is interest in de-escalating the amount of chemotherapy delivered to patients. This approach may be of even greater importance in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

This concurrent mixed methods study included (1) interviews with patients and patient advocates and (2) a cross-sectional survey of women with breast cancer served by a charitable nonprofit organization. Questions evaluated interest in de-escalation trial participation, perceived barriers/facilitators to participation, and language describing de-escalation.

RESULTS

Sixteen patient advocates and 24 patients were interviewed. Key barriers to de-escalation included fear of recurrence, worry about decision regret, lack of clinical trial interest, and dislike for focus on less treatment. Facilitators included trust in physician recommendation, toxicity avoidance, monitoring for progression, perception of good prognosis, and impact on daily life. Participants reported that the COVID-19 pandemic made them more likely to avoid chemotherapy if possible. Of 91 survey respondents, many (43%) patients would have been unwilling to participation in a de-escalation clinical trial. The most commonly reported barrier to participation was fear of recurrence (85%). Few patients (19%) considered clinical trials themselves as a barrier to de-escalation trial participation. The most popular terminology describing chemotherapy de-escalation was "lowest effective chemotherapy dose" (53%); no patients preferred the term "de-escalation."

CONCLUSIONS

Fear of recurrence is a common concern among breast cancer survivors and patient advocates, contributing to resistance to de-escalation clinical trial participation. Additional research is needed to understand how to engage patients in de-escalation trials.

Abstract PD3-10: Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation: “Don’t de-escalate! I don’t want to die!”

Introduction: Given excellent survival outcomes in breast cancer and new methods to predict treatment response, oncologists are interested in de-escalating the amount of chemotherapy delivered to patients. This is particularly important in the setting of COVID-19, where patient perspectives of de-escalation may be altered by perception of COVID-19 risk.Methods: This concurrent mixed methods study included (1) semi-structured interview data from patients with breast cancer treated at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and patient advocates from nationally representative advocacy organizations (10/2019-5/2020) and (2) cross-sectional survey data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer (11/19-12/2019). Questions evaluated interest in de-escalation study participation, perceived barriers/facilitators to participation, and language describing de-escalation. Participant perspectives surrounding COVID-19 impact on de-escalation were elicited in interviews post 3/2020.Results: Quantitative and qualitative findings were synergistic. Interviews were conducted with 40 female participants (24 patients, 16 patient advocates). Participant ages ranged from 33-79 years old; 30% were minorities; 35% didn’t have a college degree. Common barriers to acceptance of de-escalation included fear of recurrence, worry about decision regret, lack of clinical trial interest, and dislike for the focus on less treatment. Fear of recurrence was the most commonly expressed barrier, with one participant stating, “I’m just afraid it wouldn’t get it all”. Common facilitators included trust in the physician, toxicity avoidance, monitoring with the option of increasing treatment intensity, perception of good prognosis, and impact on daily life. Participants interviewed during the COVID-19 pandemic (n=16) expressed substantial virus-related fear, including fear of exposure, fear of infecting their personal contacts or health care team, fear of cancer-related complications, and fear about their immunocompromised state. These fears contributed to participants perspective on de-escalation, as highlighted by participants stating, “I wouldn't worry about getting the chemo as much as I would worry about getting the virus” and “Less is more for me right now”.Of 91 survey respondents (69% response rate), median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR] 48-69), 86% had early stage breast cancer. Many (43%) patients were not interested in participation in a study testing lower doses of chemotherapy than standard of care. Patients not interested in participating were more often unmarried (55% vs. 32%, V=.23), disabled (56% vs. 40%, V=.17), or diagnosed with early stage cancer (45% vs. 22%, V=.14). Barriers to participation included fear of cancer recurrence (85%) and regret about the decision to receive less chemotherapy if the cancer were to recur (79%). Few patients (19%) considered clinical trials themselves as a barrier. Patients were interested in participation due to lessened physical side effects of treatment (82%), lessened long-term problems related to treatment (76%), and lessened impact on daily life (72%). The most popular terminology describing chemotherapy de-escalation was “lowest effective chemotherapy dose” (53%); no patients preferred the term “de-escalation.”

Conclusion: Fear of recurrence is a common barrier to de-escalation clinical trial participation in patients with breast cancer. Fears may be altered for patients considering treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust in the physician and use of patient-generated language, such as “customized” instead of “de-escalation”, are potential areas for future interventions engaging patients in trials.

Citation Format: Gabrielle Rocque, Courtney P. Williams, Courtney J. Andrews, Kathleen Gallagher, Timothy C. Childers, Kimberly D. Wiseman, Alan Balch, Stacey A. Ingram, Thelma Brown, Tara Kaufman, Nadine Tung, Mary Lou Smith, Antonio C. Wolff, Angela DeMichele, Lynn Wagner. Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation: “Don’t de-escalate! I don’t want to die!” [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD3-10.

Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Little data exist on perceptions of guideline-based care in oncology. This qualitative analysis describes patients' and oncologists' views on the value of guideline-based care as well as discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In-person interviews completed with MBC patients and community oncologists and focus groups with academic oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Most patients were unfamiliar with the term "guidelines." All patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline-discordant treatment but were often willing to accept this treatment. Five themes emerged explaining this including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist's experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions regarding the importance of guidelines revealed three themes: consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified three major limitations in using guidelines: lack of consensus, inability to "think outside the box" to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, it was often not considered a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients expressed a desire to know whether they were receiving guideline-based care but were amenable to guideline-discordant treatment if the rationale was made clear. Providers' preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients' desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

Quantifying treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to understand treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in Patient Advocate Foundation clients with breast cancer.

METHODS

This choice-based conjoint analysis used data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer who received assistance from the Patient Advocate Foundation. Choice sets created from 13 attributes of 3 levels each elicited patient preferences and trade-offs. Latent class analysis segmented respondents into distinct preference archetypes. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool captured financial toxicity. Adjusted generalized linear models estimated COST score differences by preference archetype.

RESULTS

Of 220 respondents (for a response rate of 10%), the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 49-66 years); 28% of respondents were Black, indigenous, or people of color; and approximately 60% had household incomes <$40,000. The majority of respondents were diagnosed with early-stage cancer (91%), 38% had recurrent disease, and 61% were receiving treatment. Treatment choice was most affected by preferences related to affordability and impact on activities of daily living. Two distinct treatment preference archetypes emerged. The "cost-prioritizing group" (75% of respondents) was most concerned about affordability, impact on activities of daily living, and burdening care partners. The "functional independence-prioritizing group" (25% of respondents) was most concerned about their ability to work, physical side effects, and interference with life events. COST scores were found to be similar between the archetypes in adjusted models (cost-prioritizing group COST score, 12 [95% confidence interval, 9-14]; and functional independence-prioritizing COST score, 11 [95% confidence interval, 9-13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast cancer prioritized affordability or maintaining functional independence when making treatment decisions. Because of this variability, preference evaluation during treatment decision making could optimize patients' treatment experiences.

Effect of rurality and neighborhood disadvantage on clinical trial interest and decision-making style in patients with cancer living in the Deep South

110

Background: Patients living in rural or disadvantaged settings are historically underrepresented in clinical trials. This study sought to understand associations between neighborhood characteristics and both interest in clinical trial participation and decision-making style preference. Methods: This cross-sectional study used patient-reported outcome data from patients with cancer treated at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from January 2017 to May 2019. Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA) scores were used to determine rurality of patient residence. Area Deprivation Index (ADI) values (range 0-100) were used to identify patients living in the most disadvantaged (top 15%) census block groups. The Control Preferences Scale captured decision-making preference. Likelihood of interest in clinical trial participation by rurality and neighborhood disadvantage was estimated using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models. Multinomial regression was used to calculate RRs and 95% CIs estimating likelihood of preferred decision-making style by rurality and neighborhood disadvantage. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, cancer type, cancer stage, ECOG performance status, and phase of care. Results: Of 1005 patients with cancer, mean age was 67 (SD 11), 68% were female, and 74% white. Gynecologic cancer (32%) was the most prevalent diagnosis, followed by hematologic (20%) and breast (15%) cancer. Of this sample, 16% of patients lived in a rural setting and 18% lived in a disadvantaged neighborhood. Interest in clinical trial participation was no different for patients living in rural vs. urban (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.17) or disadvantaged vs. non-disadvantaged neighborhoods (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69-1.13). Patients living in rural vs. urban settings trended toward increased likelihood of preferring physician- to patient-driven decision-making (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95-2.94). Patients living in disadvantaged vs. non-disadvantaged neighborhoods trended toward increased likelihood of preferring physician- to patient-driven decision-making (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.82-2.35). Conclusions: Though clinical trial participation interest was similar, patients with cancer living in rural vs. urban settings trended toward increased likelihood of preferring physician- vs. patient-driven decision-making. Opportunities exist for providers to engage historically underrepresented patients for trial participation.

Quantifying treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in women with breast cancer

141

Background: This study sought to understand treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in breast cancer patients served by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF). Methods: This cross-sectional study used survey data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer who received assistance from PAF. Choice-based conjoint analysis elicited patient preferences and trade-offs. Latent class analysis segmented respondents into distinct preference groups. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool captured financial toxicity (range 0-44, lower scores indicate worse financial toxicity). Cramer’s V determined magnitude of relationships in bivariate associations. COST score differences by preference archetype was estimated by least square means and naïve 95% confidence intervals (CI) from adjusted generalized linear models. Results: Of 220 respondents (65% response rate), median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49-66) and 60% had household incomes < $40,000. Most respondents were diagnosed with early stage cancer (91%), with 41% diagnosed within the past 2 years; 38% had recurred. Almost two-thirds (61%) were on active treatment. Treatment choice was most affected by preferences related to affordability and impact on activities of daily living (ADLs). Two distinct treatment preference archetypes emerged. The “Cost-Prioritizing Group” (75% of respondents) was most concerned about affordability, impact on ADLs, and burdening care partners. The “Functional Independence-Prioritizing Group” (25% of respondents) was most concerned about ability to work, physical side effects, and interference with important life events. Cost- vs. functional independence-prioritizing respondents were more often diagnosed with an early stage cancer (88% vs. 78%; V = .22), white (78% vs. 56%; V = .21), or privately insured (45% vs. 36%; V = .12). Functional independence- vs. cost-prioritizing respondents more often had household incomes < $40,000 (76% vs. 54%; V = .20), identified as Hispanic/Latino (20% vs. 9%; V = .15), or had Medicaid (15% vs. 7%; V = .12). COST scores were similar between archetypes in adjusted models (Cost-Prioritizing COST = 12, 95% CI 9-14; Functional Independence-Prioritizing COST = 11, 95% CI 9-13). Conclusions: Patients with breast cancer prioritized affordability or maintaining functional independence when making treatment decisions. Because of this variability, preference evaluation during treatment decision-making could optimize patients’ treatment experiences.

"It's important to me": A qualitative analysis on shared decision-making and patient preferences in older adults with early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when physicians and patients jointly select treatment that aligns with patient care goals. Incorporating patient preferences into the decision-making process is integral to successful decision-making. This study explores factors influencing treatment selection in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC).

METHODS

This qualitative study included women age ≥65 years with EBC. To understand role preferences, patients completed the Control Preferences Scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore patients' treatment selection rationale. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method identifying major themes related to treatment selection.

RESULTS

Of 33 patients, the majority (48%) desired shared responsibility in treatment decision-making. Interviews revealed that EBC treatment incorporated three domains: Intrinsic and extrinsic influences, clinical characteristics, and patient values. Patients considered 19 treatment selection themes, the most prioritized including physician trust and physical side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Because preferences and approach to treatment selection varied widely in this sample of older, EBC patients, more research is needed to determine best practices for preference incorporation to optimize SDM at the time of treatment decisions.

Health care-related time costs in patients with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Burdens related to time spent receiving cancer care may be substantial for patients with incurable, life-limiting cancers such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Estimates of time spent on health care are needed to inform treatment-related decision-making.

METHODS

Estimates of time spent receiving cancer-related health care in the initial 3 months of treatment for patients with MBC were calculated using the following data sources: (a) direct observations from a time-in-motion quality improvement evaluation (process mapping); (b) cross-sectional patient surveys; and (c) administrative claims. Average ambulatory, inpatient, and total health care time were calculated for specific treatments which differed by antineoplastic type and administration method, including fulvestrant (injection, hormonal), letrozole (oral, hormonal), capecitabine (oral, chemotherapy), and paclitaxel (infusion, chemotherapy).

RESULTS

Average total time spent on health care ranged from 7% to 10% of all days included within the initial 3 months of treatment, depending on treatment. The greatest time contributions were time spent traveling for care and on inpatient services. Time with providers contributed modestly to total care time. Patients receiving infusion/injection treatments, compared with those receiving oral therapy, spent more time in ambulatory care. Health care time was higher for patients receiving chemotherapeutic agents compared to those receiving hormonal agents.

CONCLUSION

Time spent traveling and receiving inpatient care represented a substantial burden to patients with MBC, with variation in time by treatment type and administration method.

Treatment Decision Making and Financial Toxicity in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Oncologists have increasingly been proponents of shared decision making (SDM) to enhance patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary health care spending. However, its effect on patient out-of-pocket costs is unknown. This study investigated the relationship between patient preferences for SDM and financial toxicity (FT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women aged ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama from 2017 to 2019. Patients self-reported their SDM preference (Control Preferences Scale) and FT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] tool; 11-item scale, with lower scores indicating worse FT). Effect sizes were calculated using the proportion of variance explained (R²) or Cramer's V. Differences in FT by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist.

RESULTS

In 95 women with MBC, 44% preferred SDM, 29% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 27% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (53% vs. 39%; V = 0.12) with an income greater than $40,000/y (55% vs. 43%; V = 0.18). Overall median COST was 22 (interquartile range, 16-29). After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patients preferring patient-driven decision making trended toward worse FT (COST 17: 95% confidence interval, 12-22) compared to those preferring SDM (COST 19: 95% confidence interval, 15-23) and those preferring provider-driven decision making (COST 22: 95% confidence interval, 17-27).

CONCLUSION

Patients preferring more patient-driven decision making reported worse FT, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Further research is needed to understand this relationship.

Integrating touchscreen-based geriatric assessment and frailty screening for adults with acute myelogenous leukemia to drive personalized treatment decisions

e24030

Background: AML is a disease of older adults, with median age of 68 years at presentation. NCCN guidelines suggest comprehensive geriatric assessments (GA) be included in clinical practice to guide treatment decisions. Utility of GA in older AML patients in a real-world environment is not yet established. We tested the feasibility of using a modified GA (mGA), administered by patient self-report on a touchscreen computer, real-time use and utility by clinicians and the correlation of mGA results on treatment decision-making. Methods: Sixty-two patients were recruited from three sites to complete a tablet-based mGA screening at a treatment decision-making time point. The mGA consists of the Frailty Index (FI) that includes four domains: age, activities of daily living, instrumental ADLs, and comorbidities. Falls within the past 6 months and patient reported health interference with function are also assessed. Results are displayed for the clinician to inform the treatment discussion. Results: Participants were mean age 73 years (range 61-88), 63% male, and 90% white. Frailty Index result was 32% fit, 40% intermediate, and 28% frail. Providers were asked the fit/frailty status prior to seeing the results of the mGA. Of 53 provider responses, there was 57% (n=30) provider concordance with the mGA result; 9% (n=5) said fit when mGA said intermediate and 17% (n=9) said intermediate when mGA said frail. When asked their goals of care, nearly all (n=60, 97%) patients agreed with the statement “my cancer is curable”, yet 30% (n=19) disagreed the treatment goal was to get rid of all the cancer. Nearly half (n=30) indicated they want to make treatment decisions together with the provider rather than provider or patient making decision alone. 73% (45/62) of patients were satisfied with the ease of using the survey and took an average 16.3 minutes to complete. Patient self-reported presence/severity of eight symptoms at baseline (see Table). Conclusions: A simple electronic tool may provide valuable insight into patient understanding of disease to better tailor patient-provider discussion and treatment decision-making. Providers overestimated fitness 26% of the time. Final results will be presented to include the outcome at 3 months by Frailty Index. [Table: see text]

Study protocol for a multisite randomised controlled trial of a rehabilitation intervention to reduce participation restrictions among female breast cancer survivors

INTRODUCTION

Many breast cancer survivors report an inability to fully participate in activities of daily living after completing cancer treatment. Reduced activity participation is linked to negative consequences for individuals (eg, depression, reduced quality of life) and society (reduced workforce participation). There is currently a lack of evidence-based interventions that directly foster cancer survivors' optimal participation in life roles and activities. Pilot study data suggest rehabilitation interventions based on behavioural activation (BA) and problem-solving treatment (PST) can facilitate post-treatment role resumption among breast cancer survivors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes a multisite randomised controlled trial comparing a 4-month long, nine-session BA and PST-informed rehabilitation intervention (BA/PS) against a time-matched, attention control condition. The overall objective is to assess the efficacy of BA/PS for enhancing breast cancer survivors' activity participation and quality of life over time. A total of 300 breast cancer survivors reporting participation restrictions after completing curative treatment for stage 1-3 breast cancer within the past year will be recruited across two sites (Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and University of Alabama at Birmingham). Assessments are collected on enrolment (T1) and 8 (T2), 20 (T3) and 44 (T4) weeks later.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Study procedures are approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at Dartmouth College, acting as the single Institutional Review Board of record for both study sites (STUDY 00031380). Results of the study will be presented at national meetings and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03915548; Pre-results.

Impact of Nonconcordance With NCCN Guidelines on Resource Utilization, Cost, and Mortality in De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer

Background: The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) have directed the care of patients with cancer for >20 years. Payers are implementing guideline-based pathway programs that restrict reimbursement for non-guideline-based care to control costs, yet evidence regarding impact of guidelines on outcomes, including mortality, Medicare costs, and healthcare utilization, is limited. Patients and Methods: This analysis evaluated concordance of first treatment with NCCN Guidelines for women with de novo stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) included within the SEER-Medicare linked database and diagnosed between 2007 and 2013. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between mortality and guideline concordance. Linear mixed-effects and generalized linear models were used to evaluate total cost to Medicare and rates of healthcare utilization by concordance status. Results: We found that 19% of patients (188/988) with de novo MBC received nonconcordant treatment. Patients receiving nonconcordant treatment were more likely to be younger and have hormone receptor-negative and HER2-positive MBC. The most common category of nonconcordant treatment was use of adjuvant regimens in the metastatic setting (40%). Adjusted mortality risk was similar for patients receiving concordant and nonconcordant treatments (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence limit [CL], 0.69, 1.05). When considering category of nonconcordance, patients receiving adjuvant regimens in the metastatic setting had a decreased risk of mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CL, 0.43, 0.84). Nonconcordant treatments were associated with $1,867 higher average Medicare costs per month compared with concordant treatments (95% CL, $918, $2,817). Single-agent HER2-targeted therapy was the highest costing category of nonconcordance at $3,008 (95% CL, $1,014, $5,001). Healthcare utilization rates were similar for patients receiving concordant and nonconcordant treatments. Conclusions: Despite a lack of survival benefit, concordant care was associated with lower costs, suggesting potential benefit to increasing standardization of care. These findings may influence policy decisions regarding implementation of pathway programs as health systems transition to value-based models.

Treatment decision-making and financial toxicity in metastatic breast cancer

97

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM), a process where patients partner with their physician to incorporate personal preferences into treatment decisions, is a tenet of high-value healthcare. It is unknown if high-value care associated with SDM manifests in the form of decreased out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, this study analyzes the relationship between patient preference for SDM and financial toxicity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women age ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama between 2017 and 2019. SDM preference and financial toxicity were measured using the Control Preferences Scale and the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (11-item scale from 0-44, with lower scores indicating worse FT), respectively. Patient demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d or Cramer’s V. Differences in financial toxicity by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist. Results: In 79 women with MBC, 41% preferred SDM, 33% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 22% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (48% vs. 40%; V = .15), higher income (52% vs. 44%; V = .09), and privately insured (47% vs. 41%; V = .11). Overall median COST score was 23 (interquartile range 16-30), which varied modestly by SDM preference. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, similar financial toxicity levels were found in patients who preferred SDM (COST 22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19-25), patient-driven decision making (COST 22, 95% CI 18-26), and provider-driven decision making (COST 24, 95% CI 20-27). Conclusions: Similar levels of financial toxicity were found in patients with differing decision–making preferences regarding their MBC treatment, which may be secondary to lack of discussions about cost. Further research is needed to determine if and how financial toxicity is being identified or included within decision-making.

Health insurance literacy, status, and financial toxicity in women receiving treatment for metastatic breast cancer

96

Background: Though uninsurance rates declined after the Affordable Care Act, the number of underinsured, or individuals who spend > 10% of their income on out-of-pocket (OOP) medical costs, continues to rise. In patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), underinsurance may lead to financial toxicity (FT), or patient-level financial burden and distress, since diagnosis and treatment is extremely costly. This study explores health insurance literacy and the association between FT and health insurance status in women receiving treatment for MBC. Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized survey data collected from 2017-2019 in women age ≥18 receiving treatment for MBC at two academic medical centers in Alabama. FT was measured by the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (11-item scale from 0-44, with lower scores indicating worse FT). Health insurance status and OOP costs were self-reported. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d or Cramer’s V. Mixed and generalized linear models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist estimated the association between FT and health insurance status. Results: In 81 women with MBC, median COST score was 24 (interquartile range [IQR] 17-30), 44% had private insurance, 40% Medicare, and 16% Medicaid. Though 25% and 33% of surveyed patients did not know their health insurance premium or deductible cost, respectively, privately insured patients more often knew the cost of their premiums (97%; V = 0.58) and deductibles (81%; V = 0.33) compared to publicly insured patients. In adjusted models, FT levels did not differ significantly based on health insurance type (private insurance COST 21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25; Medicaid COST 23, 95% CI 17-29; Medicare COST 24, 95% CI 20-27). However, risk of severe FT (COST ≤13) was 147% higher for privately insured patients versus Medicare beneficiaries (risk ratio 2.47, 95% CI 1.44-4.21). Conclusions: Despite higher levels of health insurance literacy, privately insured patients receiving treatment for MBC may be at increased risk of severe FT. Further research is needed to understand causes of underinsurance in patients with MBC, which could lead to cancer-related FT.

Visualizing treatment patterns and survival in metastatic breast cancer

316

Background: Optimal treatment sequencing (i.e., the order in which drugs are given) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is unknown. We aimed to develop an approach to visualize treatment patterns and survival in MBC. Methods: This retrospective study utilized ASCO’s CancerLinQ Discovery® database generated from electronic health records. Subjects included 3,312 women aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with and received treatment for MBC after 1980. Hormone receptor (HR) status was determined by concordant diagnosis and treatment records. Human epidermal growth factor (HER2) status was determined by delivery of HER2-targeted therapy. Ordered and administered treatments were included. We created spatiotemporal plots of treatment patterns for HR+/HER2-, HER2+, and triple negative (TN) MBC. Individuals were represented on the Y-axis, and time on the X-axis with development of MBC aligned at time 0. Treatment classes were identified by colors: hormone therapies in shades of red, chemotherapies in shades of blue, HER2-targeted therapies in shades of green, and novel therapies in shades of orange. Concurrent treatments were represented by split bars. An overlaid Kaplan-Meier curve allowed for observations about the relationship between survival and treatment. Results: We developed a novel visualization approach to simultaneously display heterogeneous, longitudinal treatments and survival. Median survival after first documentation of MBC was 3.1 (IQR 1.4-7.2), 1.3 (IQR 0.6-2.8), and 2.6 (IQR 1.0-5.2) years for HR+/HER2-, TN, and HER2+ MBC, respectively. Patients with longer survival often had long duration of initial therapy, suggesting a more indolent or responsive disease. Substantial heterogeneity in treatment sequencing was observed for HR+HER2- and TN cohorts. In the HER2+ cohort, HER2-targeted therapy was commonly administered for the duration of treatment with more homogeneous sequencing. Conclusions: This novel visualization approach allows for observing the relationship between treatment patterns and survival, which is challenging to demonstrate with traditional quantitative methods. This approach can generate hypotheses regarding impact of treatment patterns on survival.

“It’s important to me”: A qualitative analysis of shared decision-making and patient preferences in early-stage breast cancer patients

227

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when both patient and provider are involved in the treatment decision-making process. SDM allows patients to understand the pros and cons of different treatments while also helping them select the one that aligns with their care goals when multiple options are available. This qualitative study sought to understand different factors that influence early-stage breast cancer (EBC) patients’ approach in selecting treatment. Methods: This cross-sectional study included women with stage I-III EBC receiving treatment at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 2017-2018. To understand SDM preferences, patients completed the Control Preferences Scale and a short demographic questionnaire. To understand patient’s values when choosing treatment, semi-structured interviews were conducted to capture patient preferences for making treatment decisions, including surgery, radiation, or systemic treatments. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Two coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method to identify major themes related to decision-making preferences. Results: Amongst the 33 women, the majority of patients (52%) desired shared responsibility in treatment decisions. 52% of patients were age 75+ and 48% of patients were age 65-74, with an average age of 74 (4.2 SD). 21% of patients were African American and 79% were Caucasian. Interviews revealed 19 recurrent treatment decision-making themes, including effectiveness, disease prognosis, physician and others’ opinions, side effects, logistics, personal responsibilites, ability to accomplish daily activities or larger goals, and spirituality. EBC patient preferences varied widely in regards to treatment decision-making. Conclusions: The variety of themes identified in the analysis indicate that there is a large amount of variability to what preferences are most crucial to patients. Providers should consider individual patient needs and desires rather than using a “one size fits all” approach when making treatment decisions. Findings from this study could aid in future SDM implementations.

Lost productivity and time in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving treatment

106

Background: Costs for cancer patients are not all monetary. For patients with limited life expectancy, such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, time spent in the hospital or clinic setting can become burdensome. The goal was to evaluate time spent on healthcare among patients receiving treatment for MBC. Methods: This survey-based, cross-sectional study included women ≥18 years with MBC who received treatment at two academic medical centers in Alabama from 2017-2019. Questions regarding employment status, MBC-related hours missed from work, and time spent on healthcare-related activities were used to quantify lost productivity and time. Descriptive statistics included means and standard deviations (SD) or medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d or Cramer’s V. Results: We surveyed 83 female MBC patients with a median age of 59 years (IQR 50-66). Among all respondents, 34% were African American, 41% held a college degree, and 52% had a household income of < $40,000. Patients spent a median 60 minutes (IQR 30-110) traveling from their home to clinic and a median 120 minutes (IQR 60-180) receiving care at a clinic visit. Though not statistically significant, modest differences were found for patients with differing insurance types in travel time. Patients with Medicare had the shortest travel time (median 45 minutes [IQR 30-75]) compared to Medicaid (60 minutes [IQR 60-80]) and private insurance (60 minutes [IQR 30-120]; d = .06).). Patients spent a median 30 minutes (IQR 0-60) on cancer care related activities outside of a clinic visit. Most patients were retired (31%); however, 15% worked full-time, 6% worked part-time, and 20% were on disability. For working women, a median of 8 hours (IQR 1-11) were missed from work in the week. Conclusions: This study highlights productivity losses uncaptured by current patient healthcare cost calculations. Further work is needed to identify and minimize these additional patient costs related to lost productivity during cancer treatment.

“I had already made up my mind.” The impact of prior experience and health care perceptions on decision making in women with early-stage breast cancer

228

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when informed patients partner with their oncologists to incorporate personal preferences into treatment. Even before engaging with an oncologist about treatment options, patients may have personal experiences or knowledge of other’s experiences with breast cancer that frame their decision-making. This study sought to understand how prior experiences and knowledge drive preferences in early stage breast cancer treatment approaches. Methods: This qualitative study included early stage breast cancer (BC) patients at an academic medical center in the Deep South. Women age ≥18 with an AJCC stage I-III BC diagnosis were invited to complete semi-structured interviews with a trained interviewer. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two independent coders utilizing a constant comparative method from an a priori conceptual model based on the Ottawa Framework. Major themes and exemplary quotes related to decision-making preferences were extracted. Results: Women (n = 33) interviewed were an average age of 74 (4.2 SD), and 19% of participants were African American. Many women were given the option to omit treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, based on hormone receptor status and axillary node involvement. Major themes related to a desire for more treatment were past experiences with family members having cancer or an impression that additional treatment would be more effective. For women that opted out of treatments, prior knowledge of potential physical side effects from friends, family, and other cancer survivors were cited as a major deterrent. Perceptions of low recurrence risk also influenced desire to forgo treatments. Conclusions: Women presenting with early stage BC had varied healthcare experiences, which resulted in preconceived ideas about receiving breast cancer treatments. Consideration of these themes may aid physicians’ ability to address individual concerns to further personalize patient care, thus enhancing the patient-physician partnership. These findings will ultimately assist in improving patient engagement in SDM.

An examination of the relationship between patient satisfaction with healthcare and quality of life in a geriatric population with cancer in the Southeastern United States

BACKGROUND

Understanding factors that impact patient satisfaction with cancer care within the growing population of older adults living with cancer will contribute to tailoring programs that address patient needs and expectations. Further, patient satisfaction is a determinant of healthcare organizations' institutional performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between patient satisfaction with care and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among Medicare recipients with common cancers types (breast, prostate, or lung cancer).

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 637 Medicare beneficiaries (≥65 years) with breast (n = 304), lung (n = 158), or prostate cancer (n = 175) in twelve hospitals in the Southeastern United States. Participants responded eighteen satisfaction questions across five domains. HRQoL was measured with the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of the SF-12.v2 instrument.

RESULTS

SF-12 scores were positively associated with satisfaction domain scores. The magnitude of these associations was small with covariate-adjusted effect sizes r ranging from 0.05 to 0.12. Satisfaction scores were highest within the Quality of Care domain and lowest within the Patient Engagement domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction domains had only modest association with HRQoL, indicating that these constructs should not be assumed to correlate. Satisfaction domains, including how patients access care, coordinate care, and engage within the healthcare system, were identified as potential areas for improvement. Patient satisfaction assessment across age groups may inform oncology care providers on ways in which their patients perceive the quality of care received, which ultimately affect healthcare organizations' accreditation, ranking, and reimbursement.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists

BACKGROUND

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice.

CONCLUSION

Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Impact of travel time on hospitalizations and patient cost responsibility by phase of care for older patients with cancer

37

Background: Healthcare reimbursement changes are contributing to increased closures of community hospitals and oncology practices, which may lead cancer patients to travel greater distances for care. Limited data exists on the impact of travel time on hospitalization rates and patient cost responsibility by phase of care for older cancer patients. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of Medicare claims from 2012-2015 for cancer patients age ≥65 receiving care in the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Community Network. Patient addresses were obtained from network data, hospitalizations from inpatient claims, and patient cost responsibility from inpatient, outpatient, skilled nursing facility, carrier, and durable medical equipment claims. Drive time was calculated from patient home to cancer care site (CCS). Phase of care-specific (initial, survivorship, end-of-life [EOL]) rates of hospitalizations overall and by CCS vs. other care site (OCS) were calculated per 100 person-years. Hierarchical linear models compared average monthly phase-specific costs by drive time to CCS. Results: Of 23,605 older cancer patients, median drive time to CCS was 32 minutes (IQR 18-59), with 24% driving ≥1 hour to CCS. Rates of hospitalizations by initial (n = 14,225), survivorship (n = 18,805), and EOL (n = 8,211) phases of care were 54, 26, and 301 per 100 person-years, respectively. Higher rates of hospitalizations at OCS vs. CCS were shown for patients traveling ≥1 hour to CCS (initial, survivorship, and EOL rate of 41 vs. 20, 21 vs. 6, and 220 vs. 95 per 100 person-years, respectively). Median monthly costs by phase were $401 (IQR $182-$814) for initial, $369 (IQR $123-$1046) for survivorship, and $2075 (IQR $1123-$3723) for EOL. Patients traveling ≥1 hour to their CCS had higher cost responsibility, with patients in initial, survivorship, and EOL phases having $303 (95% CI $130-$476), $75 (95% CI $46-$105), and $736 (95% CI $308-$1164) higher average costs per month than those traveling < 1 hour, respectively. Conclusions: Cancer patients traveling further to receive care are potentially vulnerable to higher cost responsibility and limited access to care if community hospitals close, especially at EOL.

Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer

217

Background: Little data exist on patient perceptions of guideline-based care. This qualitative analysis describes patient and oncologist views on the value of discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions. Methods: In-person interviews completed by MBC patients and community medical oncologists and focus groups for academic medical oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results: Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. The majority of patients (80%) were unfamiliar with the term “guidelines”. However, all patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline discordant treatment. As one patient commented “ I'm supposed to know the guidelines and it's not supposed to be a secret to me.” Among patients willing to receive care inconsistent with guidelines, several themes emerged including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist’s prior experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions on the importance of guidelines revealed themes such as consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified limitations to guidelines including lack of expert consensus, inability to “ think outside the box” to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, a common sentiment was that sharing this information is not a priority. One physician commented that sharing the guidelines with patients is, “ getting too much into the how you practice medicine, and they may not want to know, kind of like eating at a restaurant. You don't need to know how the cook's preparing everything.” Conclusions: Both patients and physicians expressed reasons why guideline discordant treatments would be acceptable. Providers’ preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients’ desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

Tracking the clinical experience of women with metastatic breast cancer at an academic cancer center

93

Background: Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) can be used by health systems to identify inefficiencies and improve the patient experience in clinical encounters. This quality improvement project utilized a Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle to evaluate routine clinic-based care for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: A project plan was developed to directly observe the time spent by MBC patients in clinic (Plan). Patient clinical encounters could include a physician visit along with scans, infusion, and/or labs. We then created process maps of typical patient clinical experiences (Do). Next, we tabulated times (mean, standard deviation [SD]) that patients spent in waiting areas and with each clinical team member (physician, fellow, nurse practitioner, registered nurse, medical assistant, chaplain, social worker, pharmacist, navigator) to identify care inefficiencies (Study). Lastly, we discussed results with providers and identified and implemented strategies for improving efficiency (Act). Results: We directly observed clinic visits (n = 33) for MBC patients from November 2016 to June 2017. On average, patients spent 219 minutes (SD 108) at clinic visits including 71 minutes (SD 45) spent with clinical team members and 85 minutes (SD 43) spent in waiting areas. We identified several opportunities for efficiency improvement, including the delay prior to rooming by medical assistants (n = 31; mean 22, SD 20 minutes), delays with port lab draws in infusion (n = 5; mean 22, SD 13 minutes), and delays awaiting drug from pharmacy (n = 22; mean 15, SD 29 minutes). To improve efficiency, we implemented strategies including having a dedicated infusion nurse assigned to draw labs from patient ports and modifications to medical assistants’ workflow. Conclusions: In this PDSA cycle, we found that patients spend a substantial amount of time at clinic visits, and the majority of this time is spent in waiting areas. Our use of process mapping and evaluation of time spent receiving care identified important opportunities for improving care delivery and efficiency for patients with MBC.

Impact of Guideline-Discordant Treatment on Cost and Health Care Utilization in Older Adults with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-based treatment is a marker of high-quality care. The impact of guideline discordance on cost and health care utilization is unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2015 included women age ≥65 with stage I-III breast cancer receiving care within the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Community Network. Concordance with NCCN guidelines was assessed for treatment regimens. Costs to Medicare and health care utilization were identified from start of cancer treatment until death or available follow-up. Adjusted monthly cost and utilization rates were estimated using linear mixed effect and generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Of 1,177 patients, 16% received guideline-discordant treatment, which was associated with nonwhite race, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor negative, human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2) positive, and later-stage cancer. Discordant therapy was primarily related to reduced-intensity treatments (single-agent chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy without chemotherapy, bevacizumab without chemotherapy, platinum combinations without anthracyclines). In adjusted models, average monthly costs for guideline-discordant patients were $936 higher compared with concordant (95% confidence limits $611, $1,260). For guideline-discordant patients, adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations per thousand observations were 25% higher (49.9 vs. 39.9) and 19% higher (24.0 vs. 20.1) per month than concordant patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

One in six patients with early-stage breast cancer received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to undertreatment, which was associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Additional randomized trials are needed to test lower-toxicity regimens and guide clinicians in treatment for older breast cancer patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Previous studies lack details about types of deviations from chemotherapy guidelines that occur in older early-stage breast cancer patients. Understanding the patterns of guideline discordance and its impact on patient outcomes will be particularly important for these patients. This study found 16% received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to reduced intensity treatment and associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Increasing older adult participation in clinical trials should be a priority in order to fill the knowledge gap about how to treat older, less fit patients with breast cancer.

Normal thymic uptake of 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose

Whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) of a 54-year-old woman with a history of recurrent thyroid follicular cancer and an elevated thyroglobulin level showed significant FDG uptake in the thyroid bed and anterior mediastinum. A previous scan after high-dose I-131 therapy also showed iodine uptake in these regions. Because of a lack of response to iodine therapy, the patient had surgery. Recurrent thyroid cancer was found in the neck, but the mediastinal lesion was shown to consist of normal thymus tissue. In repeated examinations performed after surgery, there was no uptake of FDG or I-131 in the anterior mediastinum. Previous treatment with a high dose of radioiodine may have contributed to visualization of a normal adult thymus with FDG PET.