Oncologist Perceptions of Racial Disparity, Racial Anxiety, and Unconscious Bias in Clinical Interactions, Treatment, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cancer spares no demographic or socioeconomic group; it is indeed the great equalizer. But its distribution is not equal; when structural discrimination concentrates poverty and race, zip code surpasses genetic code in predicting outcomes. Compared with White patients in the United States, Black patients are less likely to receive appropriate treatment and referral to clinical trials, genetic testing, or palliative care/hospice. METHODS: In 2021, we administered a survey to 369 oncologists measuring differences in perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and adverse influence on clinical interactions, treatment, and outcomes for non-White patients. We analyzed responses by generational age group, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, US region, and selection of "decline to respond." RESULTS: The most significant differences occurred by age group followed by race/ethnicity. Racial disparity was perceived as moderate to very high by 84% of millennial, 69% of Generation X, and 57% of baby boomer oncologists, who were also 86% more likely than millennials and 63% more likely than Generation Xers to perceive low/nonexistent levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists rarely or never perceived racial anxiety/unconscious bias as adversely influencing clinical treatment or survival outcomes in non-White patients, and White oncologists were 85% more likely than non-White oncologists to perceive rare/nonexistent influence on referral of non-White patients to palliative care/hospice. The discrepancy between 62% of oncologists perceiving moderate to very high levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias and 37% associating them with adverse influence on non-White patients shows a disconnect, especially among older oncologists (baby boomers), who were also least likely to select the decline option. Together, these factors hinder effective patient-provider communication and result in differential care and outcomes. Oncologists should uncover their own perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and modify their behaviors accordingly. It is this simple-and this complicated. Cancer does not discriminate, and neither should cancer care.

Reducing Avoidable Emergency Visits and Hospitalizations With Patient Risk-Based Prescriptive Analytics: A Quality Improvement Project at an Oncology Care Model Practice.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations that would have been appropriately managed in the outpatient setting are avoidable and detrimental to patients and health systems. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to leverage patient risk-based prescriptive analytics at a community oncology practice to reduce avoidable acute care use (ACU). METHODS: Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology, we implemented the Jvion Care Optimization and Recommendation Enhancement augmented intelligence (AI) tool at an Oncology Care Model (OCM) practice, the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders practice. We applied continuous machine learning to predict risk of preventable harm (avoidable ACU) and generated patient-specific recommendations that nurses implemented to avert it. RESULTS: Patient-centric interventions included medication/dosage changes, laboratory tests/imaging, physical/occupational/psychologic therapy referral, palliative care/hospice referral, and surveillance/observation. Nurses contacted patients every 1-2 weeks after initial outreach to assess and maintain adherence to recommended interventions. Per 100 unique OCM patients, monthly ED visits dropped from 13.7 to 11.5 (18%), a sustained month-over-month improvement. Quarterly admissions dropped from 19.5 to 17.1 (13%), a sustained quarter-over-quarter improvement. Overall, the practice realized potential annual savings of $2.8 million US dollars (USD) on avoidable ACU. CONCLUSION: The AI tool has enabled nurse case managers to identify and resolve critical clinical issues and reduce avoidable ACU. Effects on outcomes can be inferred from the reduction; targeting short-term interventions toward patients most at-risk translates to better long-term care and outcomes. QI projects involving predictive modeling of patient risk, prescriptive analytics, and nurse outreach may reduce ACU.

Characteristics, Treatment, and Outcomes of Real-World Talazoparib-Treated Patients With Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib is a poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/mBC), with approval based on the EMBRACA trial. To date, there are no published data on talazoparib use in the real-world United States (USA) setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of real-world US patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative LA/mBC treated with talazoparib monotherapy were collected via retrospective chart review and summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Among 84 eligible patients, 35.7% had hormone receptor-positive tumors and 64.3% had triple-negative LA/mBC (TNBC). At talazoparib initiation, 29.8% had ECOG PS of ≥2 and 19.0% had brain metastasis. Mutations in gBRCA1 or 2 were detected among 64.3% and 35.7% of patients, respectively. Talazoparib was given as 1st-line therapy in 14.3% of patients, 2nd-line in 40.5%, and 3rd- or 4th-line in 45.2%. Median time to talazoparib treatment failure was 8.5 months (95% CI, 8.0-9.7), median progression-free survival was 8.7 months (95% CI, 8.0-9.9), the median time from initiation to chemotherapy was 12.2 months (95% CI, 10.5-20.1), and the overall response rate was 63.1%. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative LA/mBC and patients with TNBC by using unadjusted statistical comparisons. Brain metastasis and ECOG PS ≥2 at talazoparib initiation were associated with treatment failure and progression or mortality. CONCLUSION: Overall, talazoparib clinical outcomes in this real-world population are consistent with findings from EMBRACA.

The Use and Knowledge of Validated Geriatric Assessment Instruments Among US Community Oncologists.

PURPOSE: The use of a standardized geriatric assessment (GA) to inform treatment decisions in older adults with cancer improves quality of life, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and is guideline-recommended. This study aimed to assess community oncologists' knowledge and utilization of GAs. METHODS: Between September 2019 and February 2020, practicing US-based oncologists were invited to attend live meetings and complete web-based surveys designed to collect information on treatment decision making and various practice-based challenges in oncology care. RESULTS: Among the 349 oncologists surveyed, 74% practiced in a community setting. Sixty percent did not use a formal GA to inform treatment decisions for any of their older patients; the most common reasons for not using a GA were "Too cumbersome to incorporate into routine practice" (44%) and "Adds no value beyond the comprehensive history and physical exam" (36%). Validated GA instruments used in routine clinical practice included: Mini-Mental State Exam (54%), Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (23%), Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity tool (12%), and Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients tool (9%). Nineteen percent of oncologists were not aware of any validated GA instruments. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comorbidities were the most frequently used assessment factors to inform treatment decisions (88% and 73%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Many oncologists have not incorporated GA tools because of perceptions that GAs are difficult to implement or do not add any value. Increasing education of the benefits of GA-directed therapy could help to increase GA utilization among community oncologists.

Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccine uptake among US rural populations: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Compared to US urban populations, rural residents have a higher incidence of HPV-related cancer and lower HPV vaccine coverage. This study determined what is known about barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake in US rural settings. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to describe individual, interpersonal, organizational, and community/societal barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccine initiation and completion among US rural populations and to identify gaps in the current research. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and CINAHL databases. RESULTS: A total of 1,083 abstracts were reviewed and 13 articles met the inclusion criteria. Major themes at the individual-level included caregiver and vaccine-recipient demographics, other immunizations received, pap test history, awareness/knowledge of cervical cancer, HPV vaccine, or HPV infection, attitudes and motivation to vaccinate, STD diagnosis, sexual behavior, cervical cancer history, contraceptive use, and cancer fatalism. Interpersonal themes focused on provider influence and communication, caregiver and peer influence, and social support for the caregiver. At the organizational-level, themes included health insurance, provider characteristics, school-based interventions, and provider/practice-based interventions. The only community/societal factor examined related to a social marketing campaign. CONCLUSION: Additional research is needed on interpersonal, organizational, and community/societal factors, as well as an expanded focus on rural males. Future studies should account for rural heterogeneity by expanding the geographic areas studied. Our findings detailing factors found to be associated with HPV vaccine uptake will help inform future clinical, health services, and community research, as well as interventions and policy efforts.