Clinician- and Patient-Directed Communication Strategies for Patients With Cancer at High Mortality Risk: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Serious illness conversations (SICs) that elicit patients' values, goals, and care preferences reduce anxiety and depression and improve quality of life, but occur infrequently for patients with cancer. Behavioral economic implementation strategies (nudges) directed at clinicians and/or patients may increase SIC completion. Objective: To test the independent and combined effects of clinician and patient nudges on SIC completion. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized trial was conducted from September 7, 2021, to March 11, 2022, at oncology clinics across 4 hospitals and 6 community sites within a large academic health system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey among 163 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians and 4450 patients with cancer at high risk of mortality (≥10% risk of 180-day mortality). Interventions: Clinician clusters and patients were independently randomized to receive usual care vs nudges, resulting in 4 arms: (1) active control, operating for 2 years prior to trial start, consisting of clinician text message reminders to complete SICs for patients at high mortality risk; (2) clinician nudge only, consisting of active control plus weekly peer comparisons of clinician-level SIC completion rates; (3) patient nudge only, consisting of active control plus a preclinic electronic communication designed to prime patients for SICs; and (4) combined clinician and patient nudges. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a documented SIC in the electronic health record within 6 months of a participant's first clinic visit after randomization. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis at the patient level. Results: The study accrued 4450 patients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 59-75 years]; 2352 women [52.9%]) seen by 163 clinicians, randomized to active control (n = 1004), clinician nudge (n = 1179), patient nudge (n = 997), or combined nudges (n = 1270). Overall patient-level rates of 6-month SIC completion were 11.2% for the active control arm (112 of 1004), 11.5% for the clinician nudge arm (136 of 1179), 11.5% for the patient nudge arm (115 of 997), and 14.1% for the combined nudge arm (179 of 1270). Compared with active control, the combined nudges were associated with an increase in SIC rates (ratio of hazard ratios [rHR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.00-2.40]; P = .049), whereas the clinician nudge (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.64-1.41; P = .79) and patient nudge (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73-1.33]; P = .93) were not. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized trial, nudges combining clinician peer comparisons with patient priming questionnaires were associated with a marginal increase in documented SICs compared with an active control. Combining clinician- and patient-directed nudges may help to promote SICs in routine cancer care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04867850.

Stepped Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations. Objective: To evaluate a stepped-care model to deliver less resource-intensive and more patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority trial of stepped vs early palliative care conducted between February 12, 2018, and December 15, 2022, at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina, among 507 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer within the past 12 weeks. Intervention: Step 1 of the intervention was an initial palliative care visit within 4 weeks of enrollment and subsequent visits only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. During step 1, patients completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]; range, 0-136, with higher scores indicating better QOL) every 6 weeks, and those with a 10-point or greater decrease from baseline were stepped up to meet with the palliative care clinician every 4 weeks (intervention step 2). Patients assigned to early palliative care had palliative care visits every 4 weeks after enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Noninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24. Results: The sample (n = 507) mostly included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (78.3%; mean age, 66.5 years; 51.4% female; 84.6% White). The mean number of palliative care visits by week 24 was 2.4 for stepped palliative care and 4.7 for early palliative care (adjusted mean difference, -2.3; P < .001). FACT-L scores at week 24 for the stepped palliative care group were noninferior to scores among those receiving early palliative care (adjusted FACT-L mean score, 100.6 vs 97.8, respectively; difference, 2.9; lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit, -0.1; P < .001 for noninferiority). Although the rate of end-of-life care communication was also noninferior between groups, noninferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted mean, 19.5 with stepped palliative care vs 34.6 with early palliative care; P = .91). Conclusions and Relevance: A stepped-care model, with palliative care visits occurring only at key points in patients' cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive palliative care exposure, resulted in fewer palliative care visits without diminishing the benefits for patients' QOL. While stepped palliative care was associated with fewer days in hospice, it is a more scalable way to deliver early palliative care to enhance patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in stage 1 colon cancer: Patient characteristics and survival analysis from the national cancer database.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients in ACS-NCDB with stage-1 colon cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), in contrast to national guidelines. This study aimed to define this population and evaluate associations between AC and survival. METHODS: Patients with T1-2N0 colon cancer from 2004 to 2016 were separated into AC and non-AC groups. Adverse pathological features (APF) included T2, poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, positive margin, and inadequate lymph nodes (<12). Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1745 of 139,857 patients (1.2 %) received AC. Receiving AC was associated with male sex (p = 0.02), uninsured (p < 0.01), low income (p = 0.02), or having ≥2 APFs (p < 0.001). In the total cohort, AC was associated with increased mortality (HR 1.14 [1.04-1.24] P < 0.01). On subset analysis, AC was associated with improved OS for patients with ≥2 APFs (log-rank P=<0.001), and decreased mortality when adjusted for covariates (HR 0.81 [0.69-0.95] P=<0.01). The most significant predictor of mortality was old age (HR 3.78 [3.67, 3.89] p ≤ 0.01), followed by higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (HR 1.73 [1.69, 1.76] (p ≤ 0.01), and higher APF score (HR 1.46 [1.42, 15.2] p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: AC was associated with decreased survival in the total cohort of stage 1 colon cancer patients, but was associated with improved survival for patients with multiple APFs.

Transvenous biopsy of inferior vena cava leiomyosarcoma: two case reports.

Leiomyosarcomas of the inferior vena cava (IVC) are uncommon malignancies. There is limited research detailing optimal diagnostic and clinical management. Here, we present 2 unique cases of IVC leiomyosarcoma including one in which the mass was partially ruptured through the vessel at initial presentation. We detail radiologic findings, 2 different transvenous approaches for biopsy of these masses, and subsequent oncological management.

The association between telemedicine, advance care planning, and unplanned hospitalizations among high-risk patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread implementation of telemedicine, there are limited data regarding its impact on key components of care for patients with incurable or high-risk cancer. For these patients, high-quality care requires detailed conversations regarding treatment priorities (advance care planning) and clinical care to minimize unnecessary acute care (unplanned hospitalizations). Whether telemedicine affects these outcomes relative to in-person clinic visits was examined among patients with cancer at high risk for 6-month mortality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with cancer with any tumor type treated at the University of Pennsylvania who were newly identified between April 1 and December 31, 2020, to be at high risk for 6-month mortality via a validated machine learning algorithm. Separate modified Poisson regressions were used to assess the occurrence of advance care planning and unplanned hospitalizations for telemedicine as compared to in-person visits. Additional analyses were done comparing telemedicine type (video or phone) as compared to in-person clinic visits. RESULTS: The occurrence of advance care planning was similar between telemedicine and in-person visits (6.8% vs. 6.0%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.69). In regard to telemedicine subtype, patients exposed to video encounters were modestly more likely to have documented advance care planning in comparison to those seen in person (7.5% vs. 6.0%; aRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.03-2.11). The 3-month risk for unplanned hospitalization was comparable for telemedicine compared to in-person clinic encounters (21% vs. 18%; aRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.81-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, care delivered by telemedicine, compared to in-person clinic visits, produced comparable rates of advance care planning conversations without increasing hospitalizations, which suggests that vulnerable patients can be managed safely by telemedicine.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Distress Management, Version 2.2023.

These NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management discuss the identification and treatment of psychosocial problems in patients with cancer. All patients experience some level of distress associated with a cancer diagnosis and the effects of the disease and its treatment regardless of the stage of disease. Clinically significant levels of distress occur in a subset of patients, and identification and treatment of distress are of utmost importance. The NCCN Distress Management Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe updates to the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List, and to the treatment algorithms for patients with trauma- and stressor-related disorders.

EBV-positive PCNSL in older patients: incidence, characteristics, tumor pathology, and outcomes across a large multicenter cohort.

The objective of this multicenter retrospective study was to examine the incidence, patient characteristics, pathology, and outcomes associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-related CNS lymphoma (CNSL) in older patients. Among 309 CNSL patients aged ≥60, 11.7% had EBV + tumors of which 72.2% were solid organ transplant (SOT)-related post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD). Younger age, SOT or autoimmune disease, and immunosuppressive treatment correlated highly with EBV-positivity. EBV + tumors were associated with absent C-MYC and BCL6 expression. EBV + PTLD was more likely to be associated with the absence of CD5 expression. EBV + non-PTLD had better median OS (not reached) compared to EBV + PTLD (10.8 months) and EBV-negative patients (43 months). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that age, performance status, and PTLD were negative predictors of OS. EBV status and immunosuppressive treatment were not correlated with OS. Our findings merit further investigation of EBV + PCNSL tumors and EBV-directed therapies.

Behavioural economic interventions to embed palliative care in community oncology (BE-EPIC): study protocol for the BE-EPIC randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care (PC) is a medical specialty focusing on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illnesses such as cancer. Early outpatient specialty PC concurrent with cancer-directed treatment improves quality of life and symptom burden, decreases aggressive end-of-life care and is an evidence-based practice endorsed by national guidelines. However, nearly half of patients with advanced cancer do not receive specialty PC prior to dying. The objective of this study is to test the impact of an oncologist-directed default PC referral orders on rates of PC utilisation and patient quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre two-arm pragmatic randomised trial randomises four clinician-led pods, caring for approximately 250 patients who meet guideline-based criteria for PC referral, in a 1:1 fashion into a control or intervention arm. Intervention oncologists receive a nudge consisting of an electronic health record message indicating a patient has a default pended order for PC. Intervention oncologists are given an opportunity to opt out of referral to PC. Oncologists in pods randomised to the control arm will receive no intervention beyond usual practice. The primary outcome is completed PC visits within 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are change in quality of life and absolute quality of life scores between the two arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05365997.

Older patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma: Survival and prognostication across 20 U.S. cancer centers.

There is a paucity of large-scale data delineating outcomes and prognostication of older patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). We retrospectively analyzed 539 newly-diagnosed PCNSL patients ages ≥60 years across 20 U.S. academic centers. The median age was 70 years (range 60-88); at least one geriatric syndrome was present in 46%; the median Cumulative Index Ratings Scale-Geriatrics (CIRS-G) score was 6 (range, 0-27); and 36% had impairment in activities of daily living (ADL). The most common induction regimens were high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) ± rituximab; methotrexate, temozolomide, rituximab (MTR); and rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine (R-MPV). Overall, 70% of patients achieved remission, with 14% undergoing consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and 24% receiving maintenance. With 58-month median follow-up, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 17 months (95% CI 13-22 months) and 43 months (95% CI 31-56 months), respectively. Three-year PFS and OS were highest with MTR (55% and 74%, respectively). With single-agent methotrexate ± rituximab, 3-year PFS and OS were 30% (p = .0002) and 47% (p = .0072). On multivariate analysis, increasing age at diagnosis and Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was associated with inferior PFS; age, hypoalbuminemia, higher CIRS-G score, and ECOG PS adversely affected OS. Among patients receiving maintenance, 3-year PFS was 65% versus 45% without maintenance (p = 0.02), with 3-year OS of 84% versus 61%, respectively (p = .0003). Altogether, outcomes in older PCNSL patients appeared optimized with HD-MTX combination induction regimens and maintenance therapy. Furthermore, several prognostic factors, including geriatric measures, were associated with inferior outcomes.

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.

Oncologist phenotypes and associations with response to a machine learning-based intervention to increase advance care planning: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: While health systems have implemented multifaceted interventions to improve physician and patient communication in serious illnesses such as cancer, clinicians vary in their response to these initiatives. In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial, we identified phenotypes of oncology clinicians based on practice pattern and demographic data, then evaluated associations between such phenotypes and response to a machine learning (ML)-based intervention to prompt earlier advance care planning (ACP) for patients with cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Between June and November 2019, we conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial testing the impact of text message prompts to 78 oncology clinicians at 9 oncology practices to perform ACP conversations among patients with cancer at high risk of 180-day mortality, identified using a ML prognostic algorithm. All practices began in the pre-intervention group, which received weekly emails about ACP performance only; practices were sequentially randomized to receive the intervention at 4-week intervals in a stepped-wedge design. We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify oncologist phenotypes based on 11 baseline demographic and practice pattern variables identified using EHR and internal administrative sources. Difference-in-differences analyses assessed associations between oncologist phenotype and the outcome of change in ACP conversation rate, before and during the intervention period. Primary analyses were adjusted for patients' sex, age, race, insurance status, marital status, and Charlson comorbidity index. The sample consisted of 2695 patients with a mean age of 64.9 years, of whom 72% were White, 20% were Black, and 52% were male. 78 oncology clinicians (42 oncologists, 36 advanced practice providers) were included. Three oncologist phenotypes were identified: Class 1 (n = 9) composed primarily of high-volume generalist oncologists, Class 2 (n = 5) comprised primarily of low-volume specialist oncologists; and 3) Class 3 (n = 28), composed primarily of high-volume specialist oncologists. Compared with class 1 and class 3, class 2 had lower mean clinic days per week (1.6 vs 2.5 [class 3] vs 4.4 [class 1]) a higher percentage of new patients per week (35% vs 21% vs 18%), higher baseline ACP rates (3.9% vs 1.6% vs 0.8%), and lower baseline rates of chemotherapy within 14 days of death (1.4% vs 6.5% vs 7.1%). Overall, ACP rates were 3.6% in the pre-intervention wedges and 15.2% in intervention wedges (11.6 percentage-point difference). Compared to class 3, oncologists in class 1 (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 6.1, p = 0.006) and class 2 (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 12.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3 to 20.3, p = 0.003) had greater response to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Patient volume and time availability may be associated with oncologists' response to interventions to increase ACP. Future interventions to prompt ACP should prioritize making time available for such conversations between oncologists and their patients.

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients' needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a non-blinded, randomised trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a stepped PC model compared with an early integrated PC model for improving patients' quality of life (QOL) at 24 weeks (primary outcome). Patients assigned to early integrated PC meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout their illness. Patients assigned to stepped PC have PC visits only at clinically significant points in their illness (eg, cancer progression) unless their QOL decreases, at which time they are 'stepped up' and meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout the remainder of their illness. Secondary aims include assessing whether stepped PC is non-inferior to early integrated PC regarding patient-clinician communication about end of life care and length of stay on hospice as well as comparing resource utilisation. Patients are recruited from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The target sample size is 510 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the National Cancer Institute, approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. We will disseminate results through professional society meetings, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to patient organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03337399.

Serious Illness Communication Practices in Glioblastoma: An Institutional Perspective.

Background: Early, high-quality advance care planning discussions are essential for supporting goal-concordant care among glioblastoma (GBM) patients. Objective: Using mixed methods, we sought to characterize current serious illness (SI) communication practices at our institution. Methods: The electronic medical records of 240 deceased GBM patients cared for at the Abramson Cancer Center in Philadelphia, PA between 2017 and 2019 were systematically reviewed for documented SI conversations about four domains: prognosis, goals, end-of-life planning, and code status. Patient outcomes and SI conversation characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Standardized interviews about GBM care were held with five clinicians. Interview transcripts were analyzed using grounded-theory coding to identify emergent themes. Results: Nearly all patients (96%) had at least one documented SI conversation (median: 4, interquartile range [IQR] 2-7), mostly outpatient with medical oncology physicians. Median timing of first SI conversation was 360 days before death. SI conversations were not significantly associated with patient outcomes, including inpatient death and hospice enrollment. Seven themes emerged from clinician interviews: balancing hope and reality, anticipatory guidance, neglect of the "big picture," need for earlier conversations, care coordination, the role of clinical expertise, and communication training. Conclusion: SI conversations were documented early and often in our sample, but their quality was difficult to assess. Contrary to our quantitative findings, interviewees reported that SI conversations were late, infrequent, inadequate, and fragmented across specialties, failing to explore critical issues such as prognosis and functional decline.

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.

Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of seviprotimut-L polyvalent melanoma vaccine in patients with post-resection melanoma at high risk of recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here. METHODS: Patients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients. RESULTS: For randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients <60 years old (HR=0.324 (95% CI: 0.121 to 0.864)) and those with ulcerated primary melanomas (HR=0.493 (95% CI: 0.255 to 0.952)). CONCLUSIONS: Seviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01546571.

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients' values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion-either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers-may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. METHODS: We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. DISCUSSION: This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04867850 . Registered on April 30, 2021. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute P50CA244690.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Prognostication in Oncology, Dementia, Frailty, and Pulmonary Diseases.

Prognostication has been described as "Medicine's Lost Art." Taken with diagnosis and treatment, prognostication is the third leg on which medical care rests. As research leads to additional beneficial treatments for vexing conditions like cancer, dementia, and lung disease, prognostication becomes even more difficult. This article, written by a group of palliative care clinicians with backgrounds in geriatrics, pulmonology, and oncology, aims to offer a useful framework for consideration of prognosis in these conditions. This article will serve as the first in a three-part series on prognostication in adults and children.

SARS-CoV-2 nosocomial infection: Real-world results of environmental surface testing from a large tertiary cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Despite consensus guidelines, concern about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission has dissuaded patients with cancer from seeking medical care. Studies have shown that contaminated surfaces may contain viable virus for up to 72 hours in laboratory settings. The purpose of this study was to investigate contamination of SARS-CoV-2 on commonly used environmental surfaces in a tertiary cancer care center. METHODS: This study evaluated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in high-touch outpatient and inpatient cancer center spaces. Surfaces were tested over a 2-week period after patient or staff exposure but before scheduled disinfection services according to the World Health Organization protocols for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surface sampling. Samples were analyzed via reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. RESULTS: Two hundred four environmental samples were obtained from inpatient and outpatient oncology clinics and infusion suites, and they were categorized as 1) public areas, 2) staff areas, or 3) medical equipment. One hundred thirty surfaces from 2 outpatient hematology and oncology clinics and 36 surfaces from an inpatient leukemia/lymphoma/chimeric antigen receptor T-cell unit were examined, and all 166 samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2. One of 38 samples (2.6%) from COVID-19+ inpatient units was positive. Altogether, the positive test rate for SARS-CoV-2 RNA across all surfaces was 0.5% (1 of 204). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, systematic quality assurance investigation of real-world environmental surfaces, performed in inpatient and outpatient hematology/oncology units, revealed overall negligible detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA when strict mitigation strategies against COVID-19 transmission were instituted. LAY SUMMARY: The potential risks of nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have deterred patients with cancer from seeking timely care despite consensus guidelines. This study has found negligible rates of environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 across a multitude of commonly used surfaces in outpatient and inpatient hematology/oncology settings with adherence to strict infection control protocols.

Teaching Pain Management in Serious Illness in the Era of the Opioid Epidemic: A Team-Based Intervention.

Introduction: Despite the prevalence of pain in patients with serious illness, recent guidelines for opioid prescribing practices have largely excluded palliative care patients. In lieu of such guidelines, many have recommended adapting risk mitigation strategies from the chronic pain arena for palliative care and oncology populations. Teaching interventions are needed to demonstrate how these methods can be applied to patients with serious illness. Methods: We developed a teaching intervention for fourth-year medical students to improve knowledge about safe opioid prescribing practices in palliative care patients and emphasized both effective and safe pain management. A secondary aim of the intervention was to demonstrate how a palliative care interdisciplinary team works together to care for a complex patient near the end of life. The intervention lasted 1 hour and consisted of an interdisciplinary case presentation as well as a slide presentation. Results: Twenty-two medical students attended the session over 2 years. After the intervention, medical students better understood risk mitigation strategies and felt more strongly that opioids can be a useful tool in treating pain for patients with serious illness. Students' familiarity with palliative care interdisciplinary roles also improved after the intervention. Discussion: This session was a useful part of a palliative care 2-week classroom elective and was well received by students. The development of a survey tool that assesses student attitudes around effective and safe pain management in patients with serious illness may be of use to others who teach pain management in palliative care populations.

Serious Illness Conversations With Outpatient Oncology Clinicians: Understanding the Patient Experience.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend earlier advance care planning discussions focused on goals and values (serious illness communication) among oncology patients. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional quality improvement evaluation of patients who had a serious illness conversation (SIC) with an oncology clinician using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to understand patient perceptions of conversations using a structured guide. METHODS: We contacted 66 oncology patients with an SIC documented in the electronic health record. Thirty-two patients (48%) responded to survey and/or structured interview questions by telephone. We used summary statistics and thematic analysis to analyze results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight respondents (90%) reported that the SIC was worthwhile. Seventeen respondents (55%) reported that the conversation increased their understanding of their future health, and 18 (58%) reported that the conversation increased their sense of closeness with their clinician. Although the majority of respondents (28 [90%]) reported that the conversation increased (13 [42%]) or had no effect (15 [48%]) on their hopefulness, a small minority (3 [10%]) reported a decrease in hopefulness. Qualitative analysis revealed 6 themes: clinician-patient relationship, impact on well-being, memorable characteristics of the conversation, improved prognostic understanding, practical planning, and family communication. CONCLUSION: SICs are generally acceptable to oncology patients (nonharmful to the vast majority, positive for many). Our qualitative analysis suggests a positive impact on prognostic understanding and end-of-life planning, but opportunities for improvement in the delivery of prognosis and preparing patients for SICs. Our data also identify a small cohort who responded negatively, highlighting an important area for future study.