Implementation of a regional virtual tumor board: a prospective study evaluating feasibility and provider acceptance.

BACKGROUND: Tumor board (TB) conferences facilitate multidisciplinary cancer care and are associated with overall improved outcomes. Because of shortages of the oncology workforce and limited access to TB conferences, multidisciplinary care is not available at every institution. This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptance of using telemedicine to implement a virtual TB (VTB) program within a regional healthcare network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VTB program was implemented through videoconference technology and electronic medical records between the Houston (TX) Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) (referral center) and the New Orleans (LA) VAMC (referring center). Feasibility was assessed as the proportion of completed VTB encounters, rate of technological failures/mishaps, and presentation duration. Validated surveys for confidence and satisfaction were administered to 36 TB participants to assess acceptance (1-5 point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes included preliminary data on VTB utilization and its effectiveness in providing access to quality cancer care within the region. RESULTS: Ninety TB case presentations occurred during the study period, of which 14 (15%) were VTB cases. Although one VTB encounter had a technical mishap during presentation, all scheduled encounters were completed (100% completion rate). Case presentations took longer for VTB than for regular TB cases (p=0.0004). However, VTB was highly accepted with mean scores for satisfaction and confidence of 4.6. Utilization rate of VTB was 75%, and its effectiveness was equivalent to that observed for non-VTB cases. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of VTB is feasible and highly accepted by its participants. Future studies should focus on widespread implementation and validating the effectiveness of this model.

A Systematic Review of the Clinical Efficacy of Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: Novel treatment options are needed to improve outcomes in transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This systematic literature review evaluated clinical evidence on treatments for patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for, or relapsed following, stem cell transplantation. METHODS: We assessed the feasibility of conducting an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) or network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine + rituximab versus other relevant treatments. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified, of which 20 were eligible [seven randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); 13 observational/single-arm trials]. Due to a lack of RCTs, an ITC/NMA summary of the relative efficacy and safety of the treatment options was not possible. Only two of the seven RCTs had positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the paucity of published RCTs to establish the comparative efficacy of treatments for transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL and lack of standard of care in this setting.

Comparative Effectiveness of Non-cisplatin First-line Therapies for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Phase 2 IMvigor210 Study Versus US Patients Treated in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatments for cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) include carboplatin-based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors such as atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1). OBJECTIVE: To compare overall survival (OS) among patients with mUC treated in the first-line setting with atezolizumab versus carboplatin-based chemotherapies (any carboplatin-based regimens or carboplatin-gemcitabine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC from the phase 2 trial IMvigor210 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02951767) treated with atezolizumab and patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health care system (2006-2017, with IMvigor210 eligibility criteria applied using proxy measurements) treated according to normal clinical practice. INTERVENTIONS: IMvigor210 cohort 1 patients were treated with atezolizumab, and real-world VHA cohorts were treated with carboplatin-based regimens. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Entropy-balance weighting was applied to balance prespecified baseline patient characteristics. OS was analyzed using weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median OS was 15.0 mo with atezolizumab (n = 110), 12.1 mo with any carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 282), and 8.7 mo with carboplatin-gemcitabine (n = 120). An OS benefit occurred with atezolizumab versus carboplatin-based regimens after 9 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; p = 0.004) and with atezolizumab versus carboplatin-gemcitabine after 5 mo (HR 0.52; p = 0.005). Study limitations include a predominantly male VHA cohort and ≤24-mo follow-up. Adjustment for confounding, a potential limitation of nonrandomized studies, was limited by the availability of clinical measurements in the VHA data, which allowed for replication of IMvigor210 exclusions in the VHA cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: First-line atezolizumab for cisplatin-ineligible mUC may provide an OS benefit over carboplatin-based treatments after 5-9 mo, depending on the regimen. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This study compared patients from a clinical trial receiving the immunotherapeutic agent atezolizumab with those in Veterans Health Administration clinical practice receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Atezolizumab provided a survival benefit over chemotherapy after 5-9 mo.

Study of imatinib treatment patterns and outcomes among US veteran patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the treatment patterns and outcomes for US veteran patients with chronic myeloid leukemia-chronic phase (CML-CP) initiated on imatinib (IM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (age≥18 years) with at least one CML diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition Clinical Modification: 205.1x) during the period January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2011, and initiated on IM as first-line therapy were identified in the VISN 16 data warehouse (N=137). Accelerated and blastic phases (AP/BP) were identified on the basis of WHO classification using complete blood count (CBC) data. Rates of IM dose adjustment, discontinuation, and switching to another drug therapy were estimated. Time to discontinuation, progression to AP/BP, and survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis (KM). RESULTS: During follow-up, 19.0% of patients had at least one dose increase; of these, 19.2% switched to another therapy. Dose reductions occurred in 25.6% of patients. Among patients who discontinued IM (n=74; 54.0%), whereas 16.2% switched to other therapies, 27.0% neither restarted IM nor switched to other therapies. KM showed that 25.6% and 42.4% of patients discontinued IM treatment by year 1 and 2, and 8.1% and 16.0% demonstrated disease progression by year 1 and 2, respectively. Among patients who experienced disease progression (n=28), 32.1% continued IM postprogression, 32.1% discontinued IM before progression, 28.6% discontinued IM postprogression without switching, and 7.1% switched to other therapies postprogression. The mortality rates were 3.0% and 9.5% after IM initiation, and 21.7% and 42.7% after disease progression by year 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this veteran population, a substantial number of IM-treated patients, including those with disease progression, either discontinued or interrupted IM use without switching to other therapies.