"Having cancer is very expensive": A qualitative study of patients with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient barriers and facilitators to PARP inhibitor (PARP-I) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. PARP-I improves survival in ovarian cancer, but these multi-year therapies cost around $100,000 annually and are under-prescribed. METHODS: We recruited patients with ovarian cancer treated with PARP-I maintenance therapy at an academic health system for a semi-structured interview. Patient demographics, including genetics and PARP-I cost, were self-reported. We assessed patient experiences with barriers and facilitators of PARP-I usage. Two team members used a thematic approach to analyze and identify key themes. RESULTS: In May 2022, we interviewed 10 patients (mean age = 65 years; 80% White; 60% with a germline genetic mutation). Patients paid on average $227.50 monthly for PARP-I, straining resources for some participants. While sampled patients were insured, all patients identified having no or inadequate insurance as a major barrier to PARP-I. At the same time, all participants prioritized clinical effectiveness over costs of care. Patients identified PARP-I delivery from specialty pharmacies, separate and different from other medications, as a potential barrier, but each had been able to navigate delivery. Patients expressed significant initial side effects of PARP-I as a potential barrier yet reported clinician communication and prompt dose reduction as facilitating continuation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified cost, restrictive pharmacy benefits, and initial side effects as barriers to PARP-I usage. Having insurance and a supportive care team were identified as facilitators. Enhancing communication about PARP-I cost and side effects could improve patient experience and receipt of evidence-based maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer.

Addressing social needs in oncology care: another research-to-practice gap.

Social determinants of health and unmet social needs are directly related to cancer outcomes, from diagnosis to survivorship. If identified, unmet social needs can be addressed in oncology care by changing care plans in collaboration with patients' preferences and accounting for clinical practice guidelines (eg, reducing the frequency of appointments, switching treatment modalities) and connecting patients to resources within healthcare organizations (eg, social work support, patient navigation), and with community organizations (eg, food banks, housing assistance programs). Screening for social needs is the first step to identifying those who need additional support and is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of high-quality cancer care delivery. Despite evidence about the relationship between social needs and cancer outcomes and the abundance of screening tools, the implementation of social needs screening remains a challenge and little is known regarding the adoption, reach, and sustainability of social needs screening in routine clinical practice. We present data on the adoption and implementation of social needs screening at two large academic cancer centers and discuss three challenges associated with implementing evidence-based social needs screening in clinical practice: (1) identifying an optimal approach for administering social needs screening in oncology care, (2) adequately addressing identified unmet needs with resources and support, and (3) coordinating social needs screening between oncology and primary care.

Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting. METHODS: Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.

Delays in Cervical Cancer Treatment Initiation for Patients Living With or Without HIV in Botswana: An Observational Cohort Analysis (2015-2019).

PURPOSE: To assess delays in treatment initiation of chemoradiation or radiation alone for patients with advanced stage cervical cancer in Botswana. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Females with locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IB2-IVB) were prospectively enrolled in an observational cohort study from 2015 to 2019. We evaluated delays at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 or greater days between the date of diagnosis and treatment initiation. Factors associated with overall survival were modeled with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (aHR). Associations between delays in cervical cancer treatment initiation were evaluated via univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 556 patients included (median age = 47.9 years), 386 (69.4%) were females living with HIV with a median CD4 count of 448.0 cells/µL (IQR, 283.0-647.5 cells/µL) at diagnosis. Most patients had stages 2 (38.1%) or 3 (34.5%) cervical cancer. Early-stage patients experienced longer delays in treatment initiation compared to late-stage patients (P = .033). Early-stage patients with delays ≥90 days and pathology diagnosis between 2016 and 2019 (aHR, 0.34; P < .001) versus <90 days had a decreased risk of mortality, and those with delays ≥90 days and pathology diagnosis before 2016 (aHR, 5.67; P = .022) versus <90 days had an increased risk of mortality. Late-stage patients with delays ≥120 days and pathology diagnosis between 2018 and 2019 (aHR, 1.98; P = .025) versus <120 days had an increased risk of mortality. Early-stage patients with pathology diagnosis between 2016 and 2019 (odds ratio, 2.32; P = .043) versus before 2016 were more likely to experience delays ≥90 days, and late-stage patients who traveled >100 km to the treatment facility (odds ratio, 2.83; P < .001) versus <100 km were more likely to experience delays ≥120 days. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in care are common in Botswana, particularly for those living farther from the treatment clinic and at advanced stages. This paper is among the first to show an association between treatment delays and worsened overall survival at advanced stages of cervical cancer, highlighting the need for interventions to help patients receive timely care in global settings.

Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. health care systems. PATIENTS: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). LIMITATION: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. KEY RESULTS: During the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.

Development of an Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Predicting Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility in the Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines in the United States recommend LCS for those age 50-80 years with at least 20 pack-years smoking history who currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. We tested the performance of simple smoking-related criteria derived from electronic health record (EHR) data and developed and tested the performance of a multivariable model in predicting LCS eligibility. METHODS: Analyses were completed within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium (PROSPR-Lung). In our primary validity analyses, the reference standard LCS eligibility was based on self-reported smoking data collected via survey. Within one PROSPR-Lung health system, we used a training data set and penalized multivariable logistic regression using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to select EHR-based variables into the prediction model including demographics, smoking history, diagnoses, and prescription medications. A separate test data set assessed model performance. We also conducted external validation analysis in a separate health system and reported AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy metrics associated with the Youden Index. RESULTS: There were 14,214 individuals with survey data to assess LCS eligibility in primary analyses. The overall performance for assigning LCS eligibility status as measured by the AUC values at the two health systems was 0.940 and 0.938. At the Youden Index cutoff value, performance metrics were as follows: accuracy, 0.855 and 0.895; sensitivity, 0.886 and 0.920; specificity, 0.896 and 0.850; PPV, 0.357 and 0.444; and NPV, 0.988 and 0.992. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that health systems can use an EHR-derived multivariable prediction model to aid in the identification of those who may be eligible for LCS.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI. METHODS: Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for individuals including, but not limited to, those with a personal history of ovarian cancer, young-onset (< 50 years) breast cancer, and a family history of ovarian cancer or male breast cancer. Genetic testing is underused overall, and rates are consistently lower among Black and Hispanic populations. Behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies, or nudges, directed towards patients and clinicians may increase the use of this evidence-based clinical practice. METHODS: Patients meeting eligibility for germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer will be identified using electronic phenotyping algorithms. A pragmatic cohort study will test three sequential strategies to promote genetic testing, two directed at patients and one directed at clinicians, deployed in the electronic health record (EHR) for patients in OB-GYN clinics across a diverse academic medical center. We will use rapid cycle approaches informed by relevant clinician and patient experiences, health equity, and behavioral economics to optimize and de-risk our strategies and methods before trial initiation. Step 1 will send patients messages through the health system patient portal. For non-responders, step 2 will reach out to patients via text message. For non-responders, Step 3 will contact patients' clinicians using a novel "pend and send" tool in the EHR. The primary implementation outcome is engagement with germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition, defined as a scheduled genetic counseling appointment. Patient data collected through the EHR (e.g., race/ethnicity, geocoded address) will be examined as moderators of the impact of the strategies. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the first to sequentially examine the effects of patient- and clinician-directed strategies informed by behavioral economics on engagement with breast and ovarian cancer genetic testing. The pragmatic and sequential design will facilitate a large and diverse patient sample, allow for the assessment of incremental gains from different implementation strategies, and permit the assessment of moderators of strategy effectiveness. The findings may help determine the impact of low-cost, highly transportable implementation strategies that can be integrated into healthcare systems to improve the use of genomic medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05721326. Registered February 10, 2023. https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05721326.

Evaluation of a brief virtual implementation science training program: the Penn Implementation Science Institute.

BACKGROUND: To meet the growing demand for implementation science expertise, building capacity is a priority. Various training opportunities have emerged to meet this need. To ensure rigor and achievement of specific implementation science competencies, it is critical to systematically evaluate training programs. METHODS: The Penn Implementation Science Institute (PennISI) offers 4 days (20 h) of virtual synchronous training on foundational and advanced topics in implementation science. Through a pre-post design, this study evaluated the sixth PennISI, delivered in 2022. Surveys measures included 43 implementation science training evaluation competencies grouped into four thematic domains (e.g., items related to implementation science study design grouped into the "design, background, and rationale" competency category), course-specific evaluation criteria, and open-ended questions to evaluate change in knowledge and suggestions for improving future institutes. Mean composite scores were created for each of the competency themes. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were completed. RESULTS: One hundred four (95.41% response rate) and 55 (50.46% response rate) participants completed the pre-survey and post-survey, respectively. Participants included a diverse cohort of individuals primarily affiliated with US-based academic institutions and self-reported as having novice or beginner-level knowledge of implementation science at baseline (81.73%). In the pre-survey, all mean composite scores for implementation science competencies were below one (i.e., beginner-level). Participants reported high value from the PennISI across standard course evaluation criteria (e.g., mean score of 3.77/4.00 for overall quality of course). Scores for all competency domains increased to a score between beginner-level and intermediate-level following training. In both the pre-survey and post-survey, competencies related to "definition, background, and rationale" had the highest mean composite score, whereas competencies related to "design and analysis" received the lowest score. Qualitative themes offered impressions of the PennISI, didactic content, PennISI structure, and suggestions for improvement. Prior experience with or knowledge of implementation science influenced many themes. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlights the strengths of an established implementation science institute, which can serve as a model for brief, virtual training programs. Findings provide insight for improving future program efforts to meet the needs of the heterogenous implementation science community (e.g., different disciplines and levels of implementation science knowledge). This study contributes to ensuring rigorous implementation science capacity building through the evaluation of programs.

Participant experiences in HIV cure-directed trial with an extended analytical treatment interruption in Philadelphia, United States.

BACKGROUND: A feature of HIV cure trials is the need to interrupt treatment to test the efficacy of experimental interventions-a process known as analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs). OBJECTIVES: We report the experiences of participants after they completed an extended ATI. METHODS: From April to November 2022, we conducted post-ATI in-depth interviews with BEAT2 clinical trial (NCT03588715) participants who stopped ART while receiving an immunotherapy regimen. We used conventional content analysis to code the data. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 11 Black/African American and three White/Caucasian participants (11 males, two females, and one transgender woman). The mean ATI was 38 weeks. Participants noted several significant experiences surrounding the interventions' side effects, ATI, and returning to medication. Some participants had positive experiences with their ATI. Other participants were nervous during the ATI. Rising viral loads led some to feel a sense of failure. Although trial experiences were heterogeneous, participants unanimously had positive interactions with the clinical trial staff which facilitated their retention in the trial. Participants shared their experiences with the trial, including changes in expectations, experiences with experimental interventions and procedures, compensation as a measure of respect, effort, transportation, and effects of COVID-19 during the trial. Based on these results, we provide considerations for the conduct of future HIV cure-directed clinical trials involving ATIs. CONCLUSIONS: Managing expectations, focusing on participants' contributions, and providing support to reduce feelings of having failed the research team and/or the HIV community following viral rebound should be part of HIV cure trial design. Discussing the mental health impact of rebound during consent, distinct from risk, is needed. Continued efforts to understand how people with HIV experience ATIs will improve future designs of HIV cure clinical trials.

The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening uptake for individuals at high risk is generally low across the United States, and reporting of lung cancer screening practices and outcomes is often limited to single hospitals or institutions. We describe a citywide, multicenter analysis of individuals receiving lung cancer screening integrated with geospatial analyses of neighborhood-level lung cancer risk factors. METHODS: The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community consists of lung cancer screening clinicians and researchers at the 3 largest health systems in the city. This multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team identified a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community study cohort that included 11 222 Philadelphia residents who underwent low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening from 2014 to 2021 at a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community health-care system. Individual-level demographic and clinical data were obtained, and lung cancer screening participants were geocoded to their Philadelphia census tract of residence. Neighborhood characteristics were integrated with lung cancer screening counts to generate bivariate choropleth maps. RESULTS: The combined sample included 37.8% Black adults, 52.4% women, and 56.3% adults who currently smoke. Of 376 residential census tracts in Philadelphia, 358 (95.2%) included 5 or more individuals undergoing lung cancer screening, and the highest counts were geographically clustered around each health system's screening sites. A relatively low percentage of screened adults resided in census tracts with high tobacco retailer density or high smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The sociodemographic characteristics of lung cancer screening participants in Philadelphia varied by health system and neighborhood. These results suggest that a multicenter approach to lung cancer screening can identify vulnerable areas for future tailored approaches to improving lung cancer screening uptake. Future directions should use these findings to develop and test collaborative strategies to increase lung cancer screening at the community and regional levels.

Estimating Pack-Year Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Using 2 Yes or No Questions.

This cross-sectional study describes the development and testing the accuracy of using 2 yes or no questions to estimate pack-year eligibility for lung cancer screening.

Application of team science best practices to the project management of a large, multi-site lung cancer screening research consortium.

Research is increasingly conducted through multi-institutional consortia, and best practices for establishing multi-site research collaborations must be employed to ensure efficient, effective, and productive translational research teams. In this manuscript, we describe how the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Research Center (PROSPR-Lung) utilized evidence-based Science of Team Science (SciTS) best practices to establish the consortium's infrastructure and processes to promote translational research in lung cancer screening. We provide specific, actionable examples of how we: (1) developed and reinforced a shared mission, vision, and goals; (2) maintained a transparent and representative leadership structure; (3) employed strong research support systems; (4) provided efficient and effective data management; (5) promoted interdisciplinary conversations; and (6) built a culture of trust. We offer guidance for managing a multi-site research center and data repository that may be applied to a variety of settings. Finally, we detail specific project management tools and processes used to drive collaboration, efficiency, and scientific productivity.

Association Between Availability of Molecular Genotyping Results and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend molecular genotyping for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic nonsquamous (mNSq) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The association between availability of molecular genotyping before first line (1L) therapy and overall survival (OS) is not known. METHODS: We conducted a real-world cohort study using electronic health records in patients newly diagnosed with mNSq NSCLC. Cox proportional-hazards multivariable regression models were constructed to examine the association between OS and test result availability before 1L therapy, adjusting for covariates. Additional analyses were conducted to assess the consistency and strength of the relationship. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between concurrent tissue and plasma testing (v tissue alone) and result availability. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six patients were included, 80% (261/326) with results available before 1L (available testing group), and 20% (65/326) without results available (unavailable testing group). With 14.2-month median follow-up, patients in the available testing group had significantly longer OS relative to the unavailable testing group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.62; P < .0001). The adjusted odds of availability of results before 1L therapy was higher with concurrent tissue and plasma testing (v tissue testing alone; adjusted odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.90; P = .026). CONCLUSION: Among patients with mNSq NSCLC in a real-world cohort, availability of molecular genotyping results before 1L therapy was associated with significantly better OS. Concurrent tissue and plasma testing was associated with a higher odds of availability of results before 1L therapy. These findings warrant renewed attention to the completion of molecular genotyping before 1L therapy.

Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke.

PURPOSE: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. METHODS: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. RESULTS: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). CONCLUSION: EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.

Advancing health equity through implementation science: Identifying and examining measures of the outer setting.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science (IS) could accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals. However, the lack of attention to the outer setting where interventions are implemented limits applicability and generalizability of findings to different populations, settings, and time periods. We developed a data resource to assess outer setting across seven centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's IS Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network Program. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of the Outer Setting Data Resource and characterize the county-level outer context across Centers. METHODS: Our Data Resource captures seven key environments, including: (1) food; (2) physical; (3) economic; (4) social; (5) health care; (6) cancer behavioral and screening; and (7) cancer-related policy. Data were obtained from public sources including the US Census and American Community Survey. We present medians and interquartile ranges based on the distribution of all counties in the US, all ISC3 centers, and within each Center for twelve selected measures. Distributions of each factor are compared with the national estimate using single sample sign tests. RESULTS: ISC3 centers' catchment areas include 458 counties and over 126 million people across 28 states. The median percentage of population living within ½ mile of a park is higher in ISC3 counties (38.0%, interquartile range (IQR): 16.0%-59.0%) compared to nationally (18.0%, IQR: 7.0%-38.0%; p < 0.0001). The median percentage of households with no broadband access is significantly lower in ISC3 counties (28.4%, IQR: 21.4%-35.6%) compared the nation overall (32.8%, IQR: 25.8%-41.2%; p < 0.0001). The median unemployment rate was significantly higher in ISC3 counties (5.2%, IQR: 4.1%-6.4%) compared to nationally (4.9%, 3.6%-6.3%, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the outer setting varies across Centers and often differs from the national level. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing the contextual environment in which interventions are implemented and suggest potential implications for intervention generalizability and scalability.

Uptake of novel systemic therapy: Real world patterns among adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based chemotherapy to immunotherapy and targeted therapies associated with improved survival in clinical trials. As new therapies are approved for use, examining variations in use for treating patients in community practice can generate additional evidence as to the magnitude of their benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1,442 patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV NSCLC between 3/1/2012 and 12/31/2020. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns are described overall and by type of first- and second-line systemic therapy received. Prevalence ratios estimate the association of patient and tumor characteristics with receipt of first-line therapy. RESULTS: Within 180 days of diagnosis, 949 (66%) patients received first-line systemic therapy, increasing from 53% in 2012 to 71% in 2020 (p = 0.0004). The proportion of patients receiving first-line immunotherapy+/-chemotherapy (IMO) increased from 14%-66% (p<0.0001). Overall, 380 (26%) patients received both first- and second-line treatment, varying by year between 16%-36% (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients receiving second-line IMO increased from 13%-37% (p<0.0001). Older age and current smoking status were inversely associated with receipt of first-line therapy. Higher BMI, receipt of radiation, and diagnosis year were positively associated with receipt of first-line therapy. No association was found for race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: The proportion of advanced NSCLC patients receiving first- and second-line treatment increased over time, particularly for IMO treatments. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of these therapies on patient outcomes, including short-term, long-term, and financial toxicities. MICROABSTRACT: Systemic treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is shifting from platinum-based therapies to immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Using de novo stage IV NSCLC patients identified from 4 healthcare systems, we examine trends in systemic therapy. We saw an increase in the portion of patients receiving any systemic therapy and a sharp increase in the proportion of patients receiving immunotherapy.

Smoking status and the association between patient-level factors and survival among lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking, advances in targeted therapies, and implementation of lung cancer screening have changed the clinical landscape for lung cancer. The proportion of lung cancer deaths is increasing in those who have never smoked cigarettes. To better understand contemporary patterns in survival among patients with lung cancer, a comprehensive evaluation of factors associated with survival, including differential associations by smoking status, is needed. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019, were identified. We estimated all-cause and lung cancer-specific median, 5-year, and multivariable restricted mean survival time (RMST) to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors associated with survival, overall and stratified by smoking status (never, former, and current). RESULTS: Analyses included 6813 patients with lung cancer: 13.9% never smoked, 54.2% formerly smoked, and 31.9% currently smoked. All-cause RMST through 5 years for those who never, formerly, and currently smoked was 32.1, 25.9, and 23.3 months, respectively. Lung cancer-specific RMST was 36.3 months, 30.3 months, and 26.0 months, respectively. Across most models, female sex, younger age, higher socioeconomic measures, first-course surgery, histology, and body mass index were positively associated, and higher stage was inversely associated with survival. Relative to White patients, Black patients had increased survival among those who formerly smoked. CONCLUSIONS: We identify actionable factors associated with survival between those who never, formerly, and currently smoked cigarettes. These findings illuminate opportunities to address underlying mechanisms driving lung cancer progression, including use of first-course treatment, and enhanced implementation of tailored smoking cessation interventions for individuals diagnosed with cancer.