Using Oncology Treatment Pathway Data to Evaluate Serious Illness Communication, Care Utilization, and End-of-Life Care for Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Oncology treatment pathways provide decision support and encourage guideline adherence. Pathway data combined with electronic health record (EHR) data can identify patient populations with poor prognoses, low serious illness conversation (SIC) rates, and high acute care utilization that may benefit from targeted interventions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis among adults with cancer treated at seven affiliated sites of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) who had navigations within 21 treatment pathways between July 29, 2019, and March 8, 2023. DFCI clinicians previously identified pathway nodes with an estimated survival less than 1 year, termed poor prognosis (PP) nodes. We combined pathway data with EHR data to calculate the median overall survival (OS) and proportion of patients with SICs, acute care utilization (hospitalizations and emergency department visits), and outpatient palliative care 6 months after treatment node navigation for all, PP, and nonpoor prognosis (nPP) nodes. SICs were identified using the EHR advanced care planning (ACP) tab. RESULTS: There were 15,261 navigations for 10,203 patients (median age 66 years, 55% female, 85% White). The median OS was 13.8 months for all nodes, 7.8 months for PP nodes, and 21.0 months for nPP nodes. The ACP section of the EHR rate 6 months after navigation was 19.6% for PP nodes versus 11.0% for nPP nodes. There was substantial intragroup variability in OS and SIC rates among all nodes. SICs were recorded in the ACP tab for only 34.3% of decedents. Patients who navigated to PP nodes had higher levels of acute care utilization and palliative care encounters. CONCLUSION: Treatment pathway data enabled identification of patient populations with poor prognoses, low SIC rates, and high acute care utilization.

County-level jail and state-level prison incarceration and cancer mortality in the United States.

This study examined the association of county-level jail and state-level prison incarceration rates and cancer mortality rates in the United States. Incarceration rates (1995-2018) were sourced from national data and categorized into quartiles. County- and state-level mortality rates (2000-2019) with invasive cancer as the underlying cause of death were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System. Compared with the first quartile (lowest incarceration rate), the second, third, and fourth quartiles (highest incarceration rate) of county-level jail incarceration rate were associated with 1.3%, 2.3%, and 3.9% higher county-level cancer mortality rates, respectively, in adjusted analyses. Compared with the first quartile, the second, third, and fourth quartiles of state-level prison incarceration rate were associated with 1.7%, 2.5%, and 3.9% higher state-level cancer mortality rates, respectively. Associations were more pronounced for liver and lung cancers. Addressing adverse effects of mass incarceration may potentially improve cancer outcomes in affected communities.

Content Analysis of Serious Illness Conversation Documentation: Structured vs. Free-Text Information.

CONTEXT: Clear, accessible, and thorough documentation of serious illness conversations helps ensure that critical information patients share with clinicians is reflected in their future care. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize and compare serious illness conversations recorded in two different ways in the electronic health record to better understand patterns of serious illness conversation documentation. METHODS: We performed content analysis of serious illness conversations documented in the electronic health record, whether documented via structured tab or free-text clinical notes, for patients (n = 150) with advanced cancer who started a treatment associated with a poor prognosis between October 2020 and June 2022. A multidisciplinary team iteratively developed a codebook to classify serious illness conversation content (e.g., goals/hopes) on a preliminary sample (n = 30), and two researchers performed mixed deductive-inductive coding on the remaining data (n = 120). We reviewed documentation from 34 patients with serious illness conversations documentation in the structured tab only, 43 with documentation in only free-text clinical notes, and 44 with documentation of both types. We then compared content between documentation types. RESULTS: Information documented more frequently in structured tabs included fears/worries and illness understanding; clinical notes more often included treatment preferences, deliberations surrounding advance directives, function, and trade-offs. Qualitative insights highlight a range of length and detail across documentation types, and suggest notable authorship by palliative and social work clinicians. CONCLUSION: How serious illness conversations are documented in the electronic health record may impact the content captured. Future quality improvement efforts should seek to consolidate documentation sources to improve care and information retention.

Spending Analysis of Machine Learning-Based Communication Nudges in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness conversations (SICs) in the outpatient setting may improve mood and quality of life among patients with cancer and decrease aggressive end-of-life care. Interventions informed by behavioral economics may increase rates of SICs between oncology clinicians and patients, but the impact of these interventions on end-of-life spending is unknown. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized, controlled trial that involved nine medical oncology practices and their high-risk patients at a large academic institution between June 2019 and April 2020. The study included 1187 patients who were identified by a machine-learning algorithm as high risk of 180-day mortality and who died by December 2020. The patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (controls) or to a behavioral intervention designed to increase clinician-initiated SICs. We abstracted spending - defined as inflation-adjusted costs for acute care (inpatient plus emergency room), office/outpatient care, intravenous systemic therapy, other therapy (e.g., radiation), long-term care, and hospice - from the institution's accounting system, and we captured spending at inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy settings. To evaluate intervention impacts on spending, we used a two-part model, first using logistic regression to model zero versus nonzero spending and second using generalized linear mixed models with gamma distribution and log-link function to model daily mean spending in the last 180days of life. Models were adjusted for clinic and wedge fixed effects, and they were clustered at the oncologist level. For all patients with at least one SIC within 6 months of death, we also calculated their mean daily spending before and after SIC. RESULTS: Median age at death was 68years (interquartile range, 15.5), 317 patients (27%) were Black or of ethnicities other than white, and 448 patients (38%) had an SIC. The intervention was associated with lower unadjusted mean daily spending in the last 6 months of life for the intervention group versus controls ($377.96 vs. $449.92; adjusted mean difference, -$75.33; 95% confidence interval, -$136.42 to -$14.23; P=0.02), translating to $13,747 total adjusted savings per decedent and $13 million in cumulative savings across all decedents in the intervention group. Compared with controls, patients in the intervention group incurred lower mean daily spending for systemic therapy (adjusted difference, -$44.59; P=0.001), office/outpatient care (-$9.62; P=0.001), and other therapy (-$8.65; P=0.04). The intervention was not associated with differences in end-of-life spending for acute care, long-term care, or hospice. Results were consistent for spending in the last 1 and 3 months of life and after adjusting for age, race, and ethnicity. For patients with SICs, mean daily spending decreased by $37.92 following the first SIC ($329.87 vs. $291.95). CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based, behaviorally informed intervention to prompt SICs led to end-of-life savings among patients with cancer, driven by decreased systemic therapy and outpatient spending. (Funded by the Penn Center for Precision Medicine and the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03984773.).

Association of Remote Patient-Reported Outcomes and Step Counts With Hospitalization or Death Among Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: Secondary Analysis of the PROStep Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant symptoms and declines in functional status, which are associated with poor outcomes. Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms) and step counts (functional status) may proactively identify patients at risk of hospitalization or death. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of (1) longitudinal PROs with step counts and (2) PROs and step counts with hospitalization or death. METHODS: The PROStep randomized trial enrolled 108 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy at a large academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to weekly text-based monitoring of 8 PROs plus continuous step count monitoring via Fitbit (Google) versus usual care. This preplanned secondary analysis included 57 of 75 patients randomized to the intervention who had PRO and step count data. We analyzed the associations between PROs and mean daily step counts and the associations of PROs and step counts with the composite outcome of hospitalization or death using bootstrapped generalized linear models to account for longitudinal data. RESULTS: Among 57 patients, the mean age was 57 (SD 10.9) years, 24 (42%) were female, 43 (75%) had advanced gastrointestinal cancer, 14 (25%) had advanced lung cancer, and 25 (44%) were hospitalized or died during follow-up. A 1-point weekly increase (on a 32-point scale) in aggregate PRO score was associated with 247 fewer mean daily steps (95% CI -277 to -213; P<.001). PROs most strongly associated with step count decline were patient-reported activity (daily step change -892), nausea score (-677), and constipation score (524). A 1-point weekly increase in aggregate PRO score was associated with 20% greater odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4; P=.01). PROs most strongly associated with hospitalization or death were pain (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5; P<.001), decreased activity (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1; P=.01), dyspnea (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P=.02), and sadness (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.3; P=.03). A decrease in 1000 steps was associated with 16% greater odds of hospitalization or death (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.3; P=.03). Compared with baseline, mean daily step count decreased 7% (n=274 steps), 9% (n=351 steps), and 16% (n=667 steps) in the 3, 2, and 1 weeks before hospitalization or death, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial among patients with advanced cancer, higher symptom burden and decreased step count were independently associated with and predictably worsened close to hospitalization or death. Future interventions should leverage longitudinal PRO and step count data to target interventions toward patients at risk for poor outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04616768. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054675.

Let Us Have the Conversation: Serious Illness Communication in Oncology: Definitions, Barriers, and Successful Approaches.

Serious illness communications are crucial elements of care delivery for patients with cancer. High-quality serious illness communications are composed of open, honest discussions between patients, caregivers, and clinicians regarding patient's communication preferences, expected illness trajectory, prognosis, and risks and benefits of any recommended care. High-quality communication ideally starts at the time of a patients' cancer diagnosis, allows space for and response to patient emotions, elicits patients' values and care preferences, and is iterative and longitudinal. When integrated into cancer care, such communication can result in improved patient experiences with their care, care that matches patients' goals, and reduced care intensity at the end of life. Despite national recommendations for routine integration of these communication into cancer care, a minority of patients with cancer receive such communication. In this chapter, we describe elements of high-quality serious illness communication, patient-, clinician-, institution-, and payer-level barriers, and successful strategies that can routinely integrate such communication into cancer care delivery.

Remote Patient-Reported Outcomes and Activity Monitoring to Improve Patient-Clinician Communication Regarding Symptoms and Functional Status: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Routine collection of patient-generated health data (PGHD) may promote earlier recognition of symptomatic and functional decline. This trial assessed the impact of an intervention integrating remote PGHD collection with patient nudges on symptom and functional status understanding between patients with advanced cancer and their oncology team. METHODS: This three-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 19, 2020, to December 17, 2021, at a large tertiary oncology practice. We enrolled patients with stage IV GI and lung cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Over 6 months, patients in two intervention arms received PROStep-weekly text message-based symptom surveys and passive activity monitoring using a wearable accelerometer. PGHD were summarized in dashboards given to patients' oncology team before appointments. One intervention arm received an additional text-based active choice prompt to discuss worsening symptoms or functional status with their clinician. Control patients did not receive PROStep. The coprimary outcomes patient perceptions of oncology team symptom and functional understanding at 6 months were measured on a 1-5 Likert scale (5 = high understanding). RESULTS: One hundred eight patients enrolled: 55% male, 81% White, and 77% had GI cancers. Patient-reported clinician understanding did not differ between control and intervention arms for symptoms (4.5 v 4.5; P = .87) or functional status (4.5 v 4.3; P = .31). In the intervention arms, combined patient adherence to weekly symptom reports and daily activity monitoring was 64% and 53%, respectively. Intervention patients in the PROStep versus PROStep + active choice arms reported low burden from wearing the accelerometer (mean burden [standard deviation], 2.7 [1.3] v 2.1 [1.3]; P = .15) and completing surveys (2.1 [1.2] v 1.9 [1.3]; P = .44). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving PROStep reported high understanding of symptoms and functional status from their oncology team, although this did not differ from controls.

Creating a culture for change: Lessons from behavioral economics and complexity science to increase serious illness conversations for patients with cancer.

Patient-centered cancer care requires communication between patients and clinicians about patients' goals, values, and preferences. Serious illness communication improves patient and caregiver outcomes, the value and quality of cancer care, and the well-being of clinicians. Despite these benefits, there are competing factors including time, capacity, bandwidth, and resistance. Health systems and oncology practices have opportunities to invest in pathways that assist patients and clinicians to engage in serious illness conversations. We discuss how applying insights from behavioral economics and complexity science may help clinicians engage in serious illness conversation and improve patient-centered cancer care.

Leveraging Goals of Care Interventions to Deliver Personalized Care Near the End of Life.

This Viewpoint discusses barriers to and opportunities for incorporating goal of care communications into end-of-life care.

Cancer Screening Rates and Outcomes for Justice-Involved Individuals: A Scoping Review.

Individuals who have been incarcerated or under community supervision have elevated cancer mortality. This review summarizes existing knowledge on implementation and outcomes of cancer screening for justice-involved individuals to identify opportunities for reducing cancer disparities. This scoping review identified 16 studies published between January 1990 and June 2021 that reported cancer screening rates and outcomes in U.S. jails or prisons or for individuals under community supervision. Most studies evaluated cervical cancer screening, while fewer studies evaluated screening for breast, colon, prostate, lung, and hepatocellular cancers. Although incarcerated women are often up to date with cervical cancer screening, only about half had recent mammograms and only 20% of male patients were up to date with colorectal cancer screening. Justice-involved patients are at high risk of cancer, yet few studies have evaluated cancer screening for these populations and screening rates for many cancers appear low. The findings suggest that intensification of cancer screening for justice-involved populations may address cancer disparities.

Long-term Effect of Machine Learning-Triggered Behavioral Nudges on Serious Illness Conversations and End-of-Life Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Serious illness conversations (SICs) between oncology clinicians and patients are associated with improved quality of life and may reduce aggressive end-of-life care. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Objective: To test the impact of behavioral nudges to clinicians to prompt SICs on the SIC rate and end-of-life outcomes among patients at high risk of death within 180 days (high-risk patients) as identified by a machine learning algorithm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified 40-week analysis of a stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial conducted between June 17, 2019, and April 20, 2020 (including 16 weeks of intervention rollout and 24 weeks of follow-up), included 20 506 patients with cancer representing 41 021 encounters at 9 tertiary or community-based medical oncology clinics in a large academic health system. The current analyses were conducted from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Intervention: High-risk patients were identified using a validated electronic health record machine learning algorithm to predict 6-month mortality. The intervention consisted of (1) weekly emails to clinicians comparing their SIC rates for all patients against peers' rates, (2) weekly lists of high-risk patients, and (3) opt-out text messages to prompt SICs before encounters with high-risk patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was SIC rates for all and high-risk patient encounters; secondary end-of-life outcomes among decedents included inpatient death, hospice enrollment and length of stay, and intensive care unit admission and systemic therapy close to death. Intention-to-treat analyses were adjusted for clinic and wedge fixed effects and clustered at the oncologist level. Results: The study included 20 506 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [14.0] years) and 41 021 patient encounters: 22 259 (54%) encounters with female patients, 28 907 (70.5%) with non-Hispanic White patients, and 5520 (13.5%) with high-risk patients; 1417 patients (6.9%) died by the end of follow-up. There were no meaningful differences in demographic characteristics in the control and intervention periods. Among high-risk patient encounters, the unadjusted SIC rates were 3.4% (59 of 1754 encounters) in the control period and 13.5% (510 of 3765 encounters) in the intervention period. In adjusted analyses, the intervention was associated with increased SICs for all patients (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.53-2.87]; P < .001) and decreased end-of-life systemic therapy (7.5% [72 of 957 patients] vs 10.4% [24 of 231 patients]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.11-0.57]; P = .001) relative to controls, but there was no effect on hospice enrollment or length of stay, inpatient death, or end-of-life ICU use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a machine learning-based behavioral intervention and behavioral nudges to clinicans led to an increase in SICs and reduction in end-of-life systemic therapy but no changes in other end-of-life outcomes among outpatients with cancer. These results suggest that machine learning and behavioral nudges can lead to long-lasting improvements in cancer care delivery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984773.

Association of Oncologist Participation in Medicare's Oncology Care Model With Patient Receipt of Novel Cancer Therapies.

Importance: Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM) was an alternative payment model that tied performance-based payments to cost and quality goals for participating oncology practices. A major concern about the OCM regarded inclusion of high-cost cancer therapies, which could potentially disincentivize oncologists from prescribing novel therapies. Objective: To examine whether oncologist participation in the OCM changed the likelihood that patients received novel therapies vs alternative treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and Medicare claims compared patient receipt of novel therapies for patients treated by oncologists participating vs not participating in the OCM in the period before (January 2015-June 2016) and after (July 2016-December 2018) OCM initiation. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in SEER registries who were eligible to receive 1 of 10 novel cancer therapies that received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the 18 months before implementation of the OCM. The study excluded the Hawaii registry because complete data were not available at the time of the data request. Patients in the OCM vs non-OCM groups were matched on novel therapy cohort, outcome time period, and oncologist specialist status. Analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022. Exposures: Oncologist participation in the OCM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preplanned analyses evaluated patient receipt of 1 of 10 novel therapies vs alternative therapies specific to the patient's cancer for the overall study sample and for racial subgroups. Results: The study included 2839 matched patients (760 in the OCM group and 2079 in the non-OCM group; median [IQR] age, 72.7 [68.3-77.6] years; 1591 women [56.0%]). Among patients in the non-OCM group, 33.2% received novel therapies before and 40.1% received novel therapies after the start of the OCM vs 39.9% and 50.3% of patients in the OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 3.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 10.7 percentage points; P = .34). In subgroup analyses, second-line immunotherapy use in lung cancer was greater among patients in the OCM group vs non-OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.8-30.0 percentage points; P = .007), but no differences were seen in other subgroups. Over the entire study period, patients with oncologists participating in the OCM were more likely to receive novel therapies than those with oncologists who were not participating (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that participation in the OCM was not associated with oncologists' prescribing novel therapies to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. These findings suggest that OCM financial incentives did not decrease patient access to novel therapies.

Oncologist Perceptions of Algorithm-Based Nudges to Prompt Early Serious Illness Communication: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Early serious illness conversations (SICs) about goals of care and prognosis improve mood, quality of life, and end-of-life care quality. Algorithm-based behavioral nudges to oncologists increase the frequency and timeliness of such conversations. However, clinicians' perspectives on such nudges are unknown. Design: Qualitative study consisting of semistructured interviews among medical oncology clinicians who participated in a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of Conversation Connect, an algorithm-based intervention consisting of behavioral nudges to promote early SICs in the outpatient oncology setting. Results: Of 79 eligible oncology clinicians, 56 (71%) were approached to participate in interviews and 25 (45%) accepted. Key facilitators to algorithm-based nudges included prompting documentation of conversations, peer comparisons, performance reports, and validating norms around early conversations. Barriers included cancer-specific heterogeneity in algorithm performance and the frequency and tone of text messages. Areas of improvement included utilizing different information channels, identifying patients earlier in the disease trajectory, and incorporating patient-targeted messaging that emphasizes the value of early conversations. Conclusions: Oncology clinicians identified key facilitators and barriers to Conversation Connect. These insights inform future algorithm-based supportive care interventions in oncology. Controlled trial (NCT03984773).

Patient and clinician nudges to improve symptom management in advanced cancer using patient-generated health data: study protocol for the PROStep randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced cancers often face significant symptoms from their cancer and adverse effects from cancer-associated therapy. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) are routinely collected information about symptoms and activity levels that patients either directly report or passively record using devices such as wearable accelerometers. The objective of this study was to test the impact of an intervention integrating remote collection of PGHD with clinician and patient nudges to inform communication between patients with advanced cancer and their oncology team regarding symptom burden and functional status. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial randomises patients with metastatic gastrointestinal or lung cancers into one of three arms: (A) usual care, (B) an intervention that integrates PGHD (including weekly text-based symptom surveys and passively recorded step counts) into a dashboard delivered to oncology clinicians at each visit and (C) the same intervention as arm B but with an additional text-based active choice intervention to patients to encourage discussing their symptoms with their oncology team. The study will enrol approximately 125 participants. The coprimary outcomes are patient perceptions of their oncology team's understanding of their symptoms and their functional status. Secondary outcomes are intervention utility and adherence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the institutional review board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04616768 and 843 616.

Clinician perspectives on machine learning prognostic algorithms in the routine care of patients with cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Oncologists may overestimate prognosis for patients with cancer, leading to delayed or missed conversations about patients' goals and subsequent low-quality end-of-life care. Machine learning algorithms may accurately predict mortality risk in cancer, but it is unclear how oncology clinicians would use such algorithms in practice. METHODS: The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess oncology clinicians' perceptions on the utility and barriers of machine learning prognostic algorithms to prompt advance care planning. Participants included medical oncology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) practicing in tertiary and community practices within a large academic healthcare system. Transcripts were coded and analyzed inductively using NVivo software. RESULTS: The study included 29 oncology clinicians (19 physicians, 10 APPs) across 6 practice sites (1 tertiary, 5 community) in the USA. Fourteen participants had previously had exposure to an automated machine learning-based prognostic algorithm as part of a pragmatic randomized trial. Clinicians believed that there was utility for algorithms in validating their own intuition about prognosis and prompting conversations about patient goals and preferences. However, this enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about algorithm accuracy, over-reliance on algorithm predictions, and the ethical implications around disclosure of an algorithm prediction. There was significant variation in tolerance for false positive vs. false negative predictions. CONCLUSION: While oncologists believe there are applications for advanced prognostic algorithms in routine care of patients with cancer, they are concerned about algorithm accuracy, confirmation and automation biases, and ethical issues of prognostic disclosure.

Impact of Behavioral Nudges on the Quality of Serious Illness Conversations Among Patients With Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) are structured conversations between clinicians and patients about prognosis, treatment goals, and end-of-life preferences. Although behavioral interventions may prompt earlier or more frequent SICs, their impact on the quality of SICs is unclear. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (NCT03984773) among 78 clinicians and 14,607 patients with cancer testing the impact of an automated mortality prediction with behavioral nudges to clinicians to prompt more SICs. We analyzed 318 randomly selected SICs matched 1:1 by clinicians (159 control and 159 intervention) to compare the quality of intervention vs. control conversations using a validated codebook. Comprehensiveness of SIC documentation was used as a measure of quality, with higher integer numbers of documented conversation domains corresponding to higher quality conversations. A conversation was classified as high-quality if its score was ≥ 8 of a maximum of 10. Using a noninferiority design, mixed effects regression models with clinician-level random effects were used to assess SIC quality in intervention vs. control groups, concluding noninferiority if the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was not significantly < 0.9. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the control and intervention groups were similar. Intervention SICs were noninferior to control conversations (aOR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09). The intervention increased the likelihood of addressing patient-clinician relationship (aOR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.27; P < .01) and decreased the likelihood of addressing family involvement (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.90; P < .05). CONCLUSION: A behavioral intervention that increased SIC frequency did not decrease their quality. Behavioral prompts may increase SIC frequency without sacrificing quality.

Automated Text-Based Symptom Monitoring With Rapid Clinician Triage for Patients With Cancer and Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at greater risk of developing severe symptoms from COVID-19 than the general population. We developed and tested an automated text-based remote symptom-monitoring program to facilitate early detection of worsening symptoms and rapid assessment for patients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study of Cancer COVID Watch, an automated COVID-19 symptom-monitoring program with oncology nurse practitioner (NP)-led triage among patients with cancer between April 23 and June 30, 2020. Twenty-six patients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Enrolled patients received twice daily automated text messages over 14 days that asked "How are you feeling compared to 12 hours ago? Better, worse, or the same?" and, if worse, "Is it harder than usual for you to breathe?" Patients who responded worse and yes were contacted within 1 hour by an oncology NP. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 62.5 years. Seventeen (65%) were female, 10 (38%) Black, and 15 (58%) White. Twenty-five (96%) patients responded to ≥ 1 symptom check-in, and overall response rate was 78%. Four (15%) patients were escalated to the triage line: one was advised to present to the emergency department (ED), and three were managed in the outpatient setting. Median time from escalation to triage call was 11.5 minutes. Four (15%) patients presented to the ED without first escalating their care via our program. Participant satisfaction was high (Net Promoter Score: 100, n = 4). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an intensive remote symptom monitoring and rapid NP triage program for outpatients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection is possible. Similar tools may facilitate more rapid triage for patients with cancer in future pandemics.

Treatment utilization patterns of newly initiated oral anticancer agents in a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined oral anticancer treatment utilization patterns among Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment utilization patterns of newly initiated oral anticancer agents across national samples of Medicare beneficiaries for 5 cancer types: chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), multiple myeloma (MM), metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis used 100% Medicare Chronic Condition Data Warehouse (CCW) Parts A, B, and D files from 2011 to 2014 (for CML, MM, mPC, and mRCC patients) and a 5% random fee-for-service sample from 2011 to 2013 (for mBC patients). Outcomes of interest were the number of 30-day supply prescriptions, adherence, and discontinuation of newly initiated (ie, index) oral anticancer agents indicated for each of the cancers. Adherence was calculated with both the "traditional" proportion of days covered (PDC) approach, measured over a fixed 1-year period or until hospice/death, and a "modified" PDC approach, measured over the time between the first and last fill of the index oral anticancer agent. Patients with PDC of at least 0.80 were deemed as being adherent. Discontinuation was defined as the presence of a continuous 90-day gap in the availability of days supply of the index oral anticancer agent. RESULTS: Our study included 1,650, 7,461, 6,998, 2,553, and 79 patients for CML, MM, mPC, mRCC, and mBC, respectively. Patients with mRCC had the highest proportion of patients with only 1 fill of their index anticancer agent (28%) followed by mBC (17%), MM (17%), mPC (12%), and CML (12%). Patients with CML had the highest mean (SD) number of 30-day supply equivalent prescriptions (8.3 [4.6]), followed by patients with mPC (6.5 [4.2]), MM (5.7 [4.1]), mBC (4.7 [3.2]), and mRCC (4.5 [3.9]). Using the modified PDC measured between the first and last fills, approximately three-quarters of patients with CML (74%), mRCC (71%), and mBC (70%) were adherent to the index oral anticancer agent. Adherence was highest for patients with mPC (87%) and lowest for patients with MM (58%). The percentage of patients defined as adherent to the index oral anticancer agent decreased for all cancers when using the traditional PDC measure over a fixed 1-year period: CML (54%), MM (35%), mPC (48%), mRCC (37%), and mBC (22%). Rates of discontinuation for patients in our sample were 32% (CML), 38% (mPC), 42% (mRCC), 48% (MM), and 58% (mBC). CONCLUSIONS: Between 13% and 42% of Medicare patients were nonadherent between the first and last fill of their newly initiated oral anticancer therapies across a range of cancers. This study provides a valuable benchmark for stakeholders seeking to measure and improve adherence to oral anticancer agents in Medicare patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Humana, Inc. (Louisville, KY). The sponsor played a role in the development of the study protocol, interpretation of results, and revisions of the manuscript. The sponsor was not involved in data analysis. Brown is employed by Humana, Inc., and Ward was employed by Humana, Inc., from research inception through initial drafts. Doshi has served as an advisory board member or consultant for Allergan, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Merck, Otsuka, Regeneron, Sarepta, Sage Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Vertex and has received research funding from AbbVie, Biogen, Humana, Janssen, Novartis, PhRMA, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Valeant. Her spouse holds stock in Merck and Pfizer. All other authors have no financial conflicts of interest to report.

Disparities in cancer prevalence, incidence, and mortality for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated patients: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic minority status, structural racism, low educational attainment, and poverty are consistently associated with cancer disparities and with higher rates of incarceration. The objective of this scoping review is to conduct a qualitative synthesis of the literature on cancer prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disparities in these outcomes for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated patients, as this literature is fragmented and heterogenous. METHODS: This scoping review included Bureau of Justice Statistics reports and searched PubMed in May 2021 for all English language studies published between 1990 and 30 April 2021, that reported on cancer prevalence, incidence, or mortality for incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals in the United States. RESULTS: Twenty studies were selected. Data on cancer prevalence and incidence were scarce but suggested that incarcerated and formerly incarcerated patients have a similar overall risk of cancer diagnosis as the general population, but elevated risk of certain cancers such as cervical, lung, colorectal, and hepatocellular carcinoma for which effective prevention and screening interventions exist. Cancer mortality data in state and local jails as well as prisons were robust and suggests that both incarcerated and formerly incarcerated patients have higher cancer mortality than the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Incarcerated and formerly incarcerated patients likely have a higher risk of dying from cancer than the general population, but important gaps in our knowledge about the extent and drivers of disparities for this population remain. Additional research is needed to guide interventions to reduce cancer disparities for patients experiencing incarceration.