Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices. OBJECTIVE: The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research. METHODS: Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts. RESULTS: We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

Validation of Biomechanical Computed Tomography for Fracture Risk Classification in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening to assess fracture risk and benefit from antiresorptive therapy in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, <30% of eligible patients undergo DXA screening. Biomechanical computed tomography (BCT) is a radiomic technique that measures bone mineral density (BMD) and bone strength from computed tomography (CT) scans. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the (1) correlations between BCT- and DXA-assessed BMD, and (2) associations between BCT-assessed metrics and subsequent fracture. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with mHSPC between 2013 and 2020 who received CT abdomen/pelvis or positron emission tomography/CT within 48 wk before ADT initiation and during follow-up (48-96 wk after ADT initiation). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used univariate logistic regression to assess the associations between BCT measurements and the primary outcomes of subsequent pathologic and nonpathologic fractures. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 91 eligible patients, the median ([interquartile range) age was 67 yr (62-75), 44 (48.4%) were White, and 41 (45.1%) were Black. During the median follow-up of 82 wk, 17 men (18.6%) developed a pathologic and 15 (16.5%) a nonpathologic fracture. BCT- and DXA-assessed femoral-neck BMD T scores were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.93). On baseline CT, lower BCT-assessed BMD (odds ratio [OR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval or CI [1.10, 3.25], p = 0.03) was associated with an increased risk of a pathologic fracture. Lower femoral strength (OR 1.63, 95% CI [0.99, 2.71], p = 0.06) was marginally associated with an increased risk of a pathologic fracture. Neither BMD (OR 1.52, 95% CI [0.95, 2.63], p = 0.11) nor strength (OR 1.14, 95% CI [0.75, 1.80], p = 0.57) was associated with a nonpathologic fracture. BCT identified nine (9.9%) men eligible for antiresorptive therapy, of whom four (44%) were not treated. Limitations include low fracture numbers resulting in lower power to detect fracture associations. CONCLUSIONS: Among men diagnosed with mHSPC, BCT assessments were strongly correlated with DXA, predicted subsequent pathologic fracture, and identified additional men indicated for antiresorptive therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assess whether biomechanical computer tomography (BCT) from routine computer tomography (CT) scans can identify fracture risk among patients recently diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. We find that BCT and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived bone mineral density are strongly correlated and that BCT accurately identifies the risk for future fracture. BCT may enable broader fracture risk assessment and facilitate timely interventions to reduce fracture risk in metastatic prostate cancer patients.

Performance Drift in a Mortality Prediction Algorithm during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Research Objective: Health systems use clinical predictive algorithms to allocate resources to high-risk patients. Such algorithms are trained using historical data and are later implemented in clinical settings. During this implementation period, predictive algorithms are prone to performance changes ("drift") due to exogenous shocks in utilization or shifts in patient characteristics. Our objective was to examine the impact of sudden utilization shifts during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the performance of an electronic health record (EHR)-based prognostic algorithm. Study Design: We studied changes in the performance of Conversation Connect, a validated machine learning algorithm that predicts 180-day mortality among outpatients with cancer receiving care at medical oncology practices within a large academic cancer center. Conversation Connect generates mortality risk predictions before each encounter using data from 159 EHR variables collected in the six months before the encounter. Since January 2019, Conversation Connect has been used as part of a behavioral intervention to prompt clinicians to consider early advance care planning conversations among patients with ≥10% mortality risk. First, we descriptively compared encounter-level characteristics in the following periods: January 2019-February 2020 ("pre-pandemic"), March-May 2020 ("early-pandemic"), and June-December 2020 ("later-pandemic"). Second, we quantified changes in high-risk patient encounters using interrupted time series analyses that controlled for pre-pandemic trends and demographic, clinical, and practice covariates. Our primary metric of performance drift was false negative rate (FNR). Third, we assessed contributors to performance drift by comparing distributions of key EHR inputs across periods and predicting later pandemic utilization using pre-pandemic inputs. Population Studied: 237,336 in-person and telemedicine medical oncology encounters. Principal Findings: Age, race, average patient encounters per month, insurance type, comorbidity counts, laboratory values, and overall mortality were similar among encounters in the pre-, early-, and later-pandemic periods. Relative to the pre-pandemic period, the later-pandemic period was characterized by a 6.5-percentage-point decrease (28.2% vs. 34.7%) in high-risk encounters (p<0.001). FNR increased from 41.0% (95% CI 38.0-44.1%) in the pre-pandemic period to 57.5% (95% CI 51.9-63.0%) in the later pandemic period. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the early and later pandemic periods had higher proportions of telemedicine encounters (0.01% pre-pandemic vs. 20.0% early-pandemic vs. 26.4% later-pandemic) and encounters with no preceding laboratory draws (17.7% pre-pandemic vs. 19.8% early-pandemic vs. 24.1% later-pandemic). In the later pandemic period, observed laboratory utilization was lower than predicted (76.0% vs 81.2%, p<0.001). In the later-pandemic period, mean 180-day mortality risk scores were lower for telemedicine encounters vs. in-person encounters (10.3% vs 11.2%, p<0.001) and encounters with no vs. any preceding laboratory draws (1.5% vs. 14.0%, p<0.001). Conclusions: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period, the performance of a machine learning prognostic algorithm used to prompt advance care planning declined substantially. Increases in telemedicine and declines in laboratory utilization contributed to lower performance. Implications for Policy or Practice: This is the first study to show algorithm performance drift due to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-related shifts in telemedicine and laboratory utilization. These mechanisms of performance drift could apply to other EHR clinical predictive algorithms. Pandemic-related decreases in care utilization may negatively impact the performance of clinical predictive algorithms and warrant assessment and possible retraining of such algorithms.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Treatment Patterns for Patients With Metastatic Solid Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. METHODS: We used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14 136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at approximately 280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: The adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis was similar across periods (January-March 2019 = 41.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32.2% to 51.1%; April-July 2019 = 42.6%, 95% CI = 32.4% to 52.7%; January-March 2020 = 44.5%, 95% CI = 30.4% to 58.6%; April-July 2020 = 46.8%, 95% CI= 34.6% to 59.0%; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.4%, 95% CI = -2.7% to 5.5%). Among 5962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.6%, 95% CI = -2.6% to 5.8%). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. CONCLUSIONS: Despite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect TTI or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns for US patients with metastatic solid cancer.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. METHODS: We used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14,136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at ∼280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: The adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis [95% confidence interval] was similar across periods: January-March 2019 41.7% [32.2%, 51.1%]; April-July 2019 42.6% [32.4%, 52.7%]; January-March 2020 44.5% [30.4%, 58.6%]; April-July 2020 46.8% [34.6%, 59.0%]; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 1.4% [-2.7%, 5.5%]. Among 5,962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 1.6% [-2.6%, 5.8%]). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. CONCLUSIONS: Despite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact time to treatment initiation or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.