Measuring Advanced Practice Provider Productivity at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Member Institutions.

Introduction: The utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in oncology has been growing over the last decade; however, there is no standard method for assessing an APP's contributions to oncology care. Methods: The NCCN Best Practices Committee (BPC) created an APP Workgroup to develop recommendations to support the roles of APPs at NCCN Member Institutions. The Workgroup conducted surveys to understand how NCCN centers measure productivity. This article will review the survey results and provide recommendations for measuring APP productivity. Results: Although 54% of responding centers indicated they utilize relative value units (RVU) targets for independent APP visits, 88% of APPs are either unsure or do not believe RVUs are an effective measurement of overall productivity. Relative value units do not reflect non-billable hours, and APPs perform a significant number of non-billable tasks that are important to oncology practices. Sixty-six percent of APPs believe that measuring disease-based team productivity is a more reasonable assessment of APP productivity than measuring productivity at the individual level. Conclusion: Our recommendation for cancer centers is to focus on the value that APPs provide to overall care delivery. Advanced practice provider productivity metrics should consider not only the number of patients seen by APPs, but also the high quality and thorough care delivered that contributes to the overall care of the patient and practice. Advanced practice providers can help improve access to care, deliver improved outcomes, and increase patient and provider satisfaction. Reducing the focus on RVUs, accounting for important non-RVU-generating activities, and incorporating quality and team metrics will provide a better overall picture of APP productivity.

A Study of Advanced Practice Provider Staffing Models and Professional Development Opportunities at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions. RESULTS: The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered. CONCLUSION: As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.

Semiquantitative visual approach to scoring lung cancer treatment response using computed tomography: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare a newly developed semiquantitative visual scoring (SVS) method with the current standard, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) method, in the categorization of treatment response and reader agreement for patients with metastatic lung cancer followed by computed tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 18 subjects (5 women and 13 men; mean age, 62.8 years) were from an institutional review board-approved phase 2 study that evaluated a second-line chemotherapy regimen for metastatic (stages III and IV) non-small cell lung cancer. Four radiologists, blinded to the patient outcome and each other's reads, evaluated the change in the patients' tumor burden from the baseline to the first restaging computed tomographic scan using either the RECIST or the SVS method. We compared the numbers of patients placed into the partial response, the stable disease (SD), and the progressive disease (PD) categories (Fisher exact test) and observer agreement (kappa statistic). RESULTS: Requiring the concordance of 3 of the 4 readers resulted in the RECIST placing 17 (100%) of 17 patients in the SD category compared with the SVS placing 9 (60%) of 15 patients in the partial response, 5 (33%) of the 15 patients in the SD, and 1 (6.7%) of the 15 patients in the PD categories (P < 0.0001). Interobserver agreement was higher among the readers using the SVS method (kappa, 0.54; P < 0.0001) compared with that of the readers using the RECIST method (kappa, -0.01; P = 0.5378). CONCLUSIONS: Using the SVS method, the readers more finely discriminated between the patient response categories with superior agreement compared with the RECIST method, which could potentially result in large differences in early treatment decisions for advanced lung cancer.

Qualitative radiology assessment of tumor response: does it measure up?

Our purpose was to assess whether a simpler qualitative evaluation of tumor response by computed tomography is as reproducible and predictive of clinical outcome as the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and World Health Organization (WHO) methods. This study was a two-reader retrospective evaluation in which qualitative assessment resulted in agreement in 21 of 23 patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (91.3%, kappa=0.78; 95% CI, 0.51-1.00). Hepatic metastases were classified as increased, decreased, or unchanged, compared with agreement in 20 of 23 patients (87.0%) for RECIST (kappa=0.62; 95% CI, 0.23-1.00) and WHO (kappa=0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.00) methods. Patients were placed into partial response, stable disease, and disease progression categories. Time to progression of disease was better predicted qualitatively than by RECIST or WHO. Our pilot data suggest that our qualitative scoring system is more reproducible and predictive of patient clinical outcome than the RECIST and WHO methods.

Quantitative methodology using CT for predicting survival in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a methodology which quantifies multiple changing lesion features resulting in an optimized computed tomography (CT) response score (CRS) for prediction of overall survival (OS) in response to treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCRC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated multiple changing imaging findings and their correlation with OS with a new methodology comparing the baseline and first post-treatment CT scans in 38 MCRC patients on last-line chemotherapy (cetuximab and irinotecan). Tumor size/enhancement changes and interval development of new lesions were quantified with either Likert-type scales (all parameters) or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (size change only). The most predictive parameters for OS were used to generate the CRS with an overall range of -3 (complete disappearance) to +2 (definite tumor increase). The Cox Hazard Ratio was used to assess prediction of survival. Reader agreement was evaluated by the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Tumor size was the best predictor of OS using the Likert-type scale or RECIST. The CRS was not improved combining size change with other parameters. Use of the Likert-type scale resulted in predicting OS with a Cox hazard ratio of 1.697 (P=.0004) and good agreement (kappa=0.73, 95% CI=0.41-1.10) between observers with no significant difference using RECIST. CONCLUSION: The methodology produces a CRS for MCRC predicting OS resulting from therapy which expands standard RECIST guidelines to allow critical evaluation of multiple additional imaging parameters. Size change alone was found to be the best parameter of those considered in terms of maximizing agreement and prediction of OS.

High-dose octreotide acetate for management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting sandostatin (S-LAR; octreotide acetate) is well tolerated and effective for symptom control and possibly disease control in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). We undertook a retrospective analysis to study the efficacy and tolerability of higher doses (more than 20-30 mg/month) of S-LAR in GEP-NETs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: With IRB approval, charts of all patients with GEP-NET who received S-LAR between June 2002 to September 2007 at Roswell Park Cancer Institute were reviewed and their data analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with GEP-NET received S-LAR; thirty required dose escalation. Patients received a median of 5 doses of S-LAR at conventional dose followed by up-titration of the dose for symptom control (20) and radiological progression (17). Median high dose of S-LAR was 40 mg (range: 40-90 mg) with a median of 8.5 high doses received. No treatment related toxicities were seen. The estimated 1-year survival for patients on conventional dose alone was 0.77 (95% CI of 0.50 to 0.91) and those on high-dose was 0.88 (95% CI of 0.68 to 0.96) (p=0.4777) while median time to any other intervention was 2.9 months versus 17.7 months (p=0.12). CONCLUSION: Dose escalation of S-LAR is well tolerated and may provide longer disease control.