The Patient Experience of Prior Authorization for Cancer Care.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requires clinicians and patients to navigate a complex approval pathway. Resultant delays and denials can be particularly problematic for patients with cancer, who often need urgent treatment or symptom management. Objective: To investigate the patient perspective of PA for cancer-related care, including perceptions about the process, outcomes (including delays and denials), and patient administrative burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, anonymous survey used a convenience sample of patients with PA experience. Participants were recruited using social media and email lists of US-based cancer advocacy organizations from July 1 to October 6, 2022. Exposure: Prior authorization for any cancer-related service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Delays to care, outcome of PA, communication, and changes in anxiety (measured on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating no anxiety and higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety) and trust. Results: Of 178 respondents (158 women [88%], 151 non-Hispanic White respondents [84%], 164 respondents [92%] <65 years), 112 (63%) reported that their cancer care was approved and given as recommended, and 39 (22%) did not receive recommended care due to delays or denials. Most respondents (123 [69%]) reported a PA-related delay in care; of those with delayed care, 90 (73%) reported a delay of 2 or more weeks. Most respondents (119 [67%]) had to personally become involved in the PA process; 35 (20%) spent 11 or more hours dealing with PA issues. Overall, the PA experience was rated as bad (70 [40%]) or horrible (55 of 174 [32%]); ratings were associated with the length of delay (ρ = 0.36; P < .001) and the time spent on PA (ρ = 0.42; P < .001). Self-reported PA-related anxiety was higher than usual anxiety (mean [SD] score, 74.7 [20.2] vs 37.5 [22.6]; P < .001) and was correlated with delay length (ρ = 0.16; P = .04), time spent on PA (ρ = 0.27; P < .001), and overall PA experience (ρ = 0.34; P < .001). After PA, 159 respondents (89%) trusted their insurance company less, and 148 respondents (83%) trusted the health care system less. Patient involvement in the PA process was associated with increased odds of distrusting their insurance company (ß = 6.0; 95% CI, 1.9-19.2) and the health care system (ß = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4-8.1) and of having a negative experience (ß = 6.6; 95% CI, 3.1-14.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey-based cross-sectional study of the patient experience with PA highlights an adverse outcome of PA: 22% of patients did not receive the care recommended by their treatment team because of PA. Most respondents experienced a delay in recommended oncology care, and delays were associated with increased anxiety, a negative perception of the PA process, and patient administrative burden.

EGFR Mutations Are Not All the Same: the Importance of Biomarker Testing in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)-A Podcast Discussion Between Patients and Oncologists.

This podcast, for healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients, and patient advocates, is a discussion among a panel of two patients (and co-founders of the patient advocacy group EGFR Resisters, https://egfrcancer.org/ ) and two oncologists. The objective of the podcast is to explain the importance of biomarker testing for patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. The treatment landscape for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer is evolving, and biomarker testing has become central to determining the best therapies for individual patients. The panel discusses what biomarkers are, the processes involved in obtaining biomarker testing, how biomarker information is used, and the importance of waiting for biomarker results prior to determining treatment. The panel also discusses patient perspectives on biopsy and biomarker testing and how HCPs can best help guide new patients through this process.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2021 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized control trials from 2020 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Two studies provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a performance status (PS) of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians should offer alectinib or brigatinib or lorlatinib. For patients with an anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, if alectinib, brigatinib, or lorlatinib are not available, clinicians should offer ceritinib or crizotinib. For patients with a RET rearrangement, a PS of 0-2, and previously untreated NSCLC, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib. In second line, for patients with a RET rearrangement who have not received RET-targeted therapy, clinicians may offer selpercatinib or pralsetinib.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations. METHODS: ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.