Physician Assessment of ChatGPT and Bing Answers to American Cancer Society's Questions to Ask About Your Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are a new, publicly available tool for patients to access health care-related information with unknown reliability related to cancer-related questions. This study assesses the quality of responses to common questions for patients with cancer. METHODS: From February to March 2023, we queried chat generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) from OpenAI and Bing AI from Microsoft questions from the American Cancer Society's recommended "Questions to Ask About Your Cancer" customized for all stages of breast, colon, lung, and prostate cancer. Questions were, in addition, grouped by type (prognosis, treatment, or miscellaneous). The quality of AI chatbot responses was assessed by an expert panel using the validated DISCERN criteria. RESULTS: Of the 117 questions presented to ChatGPT and Bing, the average score for all questions were 3.9 and 3.2, respectively ( P < 0.001) and the overall DISCERN scores were 4.1 and 4.4, respectively. By disease site, the average score for ChatGPT and Bing, respectively, were 3.9 and 3.6 for prostate cancer ( P = 0.02), 3.7 and 3.3 for lung cancer ( P < 0.001), 4.1 and 2.9 for breast cancer ( P < 0.001), and 3.8 and 3.0 for colorectal cancer ( P < 0.001). By type of question, the average score for ChatGPT and Bing, respectively, were 3.6 and 3.4 for prognostic questions ( P = 0.12), 3.9 and 3.1 for treatment questions ( P < 0.001), and 4.2 and 3.3 for miscellaneous questions ( P = 0.001). For 3 responses (3%) by ChatGPT and 18 responses (15%) by Bing, at least one panelist rated them as having serious or extensive shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: AI chatbots provide multiple opportunities for innovating health care. This analysis suggests a critical need, particularly around cancer prognostication, for continual refinement to limit misleading counseling, confusion, and emotional distress to patients and families.

Insurance Authorization and Access to Proton Therapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancers.

PURPOSE: We evaluated our institutional experience to assess potential racial inequities in insurance coverage for proton therapy in patients with head and neck (HN) cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We examined the demographics of 1519 patients with HN cancer seen in consultation at our HN multidisciplinary clinic (HN MDC) and 805 patients for whom a proton insurance authorization was sought (PAS) from January 2020 to June 2022. The prospects for proton therapy insurance authorization were prospectively noted based on each patient's ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) diagnosis code and their specific insurance plan. Proton-unfavorable (PU) insurance were those plans whose policy describes proton beam therapy as "experimental" or "not medically necessary" for the given diagnosis. RESULTS: For patients seen in our HN MDC, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) were significantly more likely to have PU insurance than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients (24.9% vs 18.4%, P = .005). In multivariable analysis including race, average income of residence ZIP code, and Medicare eligibility age, BIPOC patients had an odds ratio of 1.25 for PU insurance (P = .041). In the PAS cohort, while there was no difference in the percentage of patients receiving insurance approval for proton therapy between NHW and BIPOC populations (88% vs 88.2%, P = .80), for patients with PU insurance, the median time to determination was significantly longer (median, 15.5 days), and the median time to start any radiation of any modality was longer (46 vs 35 days, P = .08). Compared with NHW patients, the median time from consultation to start of radiation therapy was longer for BIPOC patients (37 vs 43 days, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: BIPOC patients were significantly more likely to have insurance plans unfavorable to proton therapy coverage. These PU insurance plans were associated with a longer median time to determination, a lower approval rate for proton therapy, and a longer time to start radiation of any modality.

Incidence and predictors of toxicity in the management of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiation therapy.

Purpose/Objective: Given the rarity of vulvar cancer, data on the incidence of acute and late severe toxicity and patients' symptom burden from radiotherapy (RT) are lacking. Materials/Methods: This multi-center, single-institution study included patients with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma treated with curative intent RT between 2009 and 2020. Treatment-related acute and late grade ≥ 3 toxicities and late patient subjective symptoms (PSS) were recorded. Results: Forty-two patients with predominantly stage III/IV disease (n = 25, 59.5 %) were treated with either definitive (n = 25, 59.5 %) or adjuvant (n = 17, 40.5 %) external beam RT to a median dose of 64 Gy and 59.4 Gy, respectively. Five patients received a brachytherapy boost with a median total dose of 84.3 Gy in 2 Gy-equivalent dose (EQD2). Intensity-modulated RT was used in 37 (88.1 %) of patients, and 25 patients (59.5 %) received concurrent chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 27 months. Acute grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 17 patients (40.5 %), including 13 (31.0 %) acute grade 3 skin events. No factors, including total RT dose (p = 0.951), were associated with acute skin toxicity. Eleven (27.5 %) patients developed late grade ≥ 3 toxicity events, including 10 (23.8 %) late grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity events. Patients with late grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity had a higher mean body-mass index (33.0 vs 28.2 kg/m2; p = 0.009). Common late PSS included vaginal pain (n = 15, 35.7 %), skin fibrosis (n = 10, 23.8 %), and requirement of long-term opiates (n = 12, 28.6 %). Conclusion: RT for vulvar cancer is associated with considerable rates of severe acute and late toxicity and PSS burden. Larger studies are needed to identify risk factors, explore toxicity mitigation strategies, and assess patient-reported outcomes.

Enhancing Patient Outcomes while Containing Costs after Complex Abdominal Operation: A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Whipple Accelerated Recovery Pathway.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine whether a standardized recovery pathway could reduce post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hospital length of stay to 5 days without increasing complication or readmission rates. STUDY DESIGN: Pancreaticoduodenectomy patients (high-risk patients excluded) were enrolled in an IRB-approved, prospective, randomized controlled trial (NCT02517268) comparing a 5-day Whipple accelerated recovery pathway (WARP) with our traditional 7-day pathway (control). Whipple accelerated recovery pathway interventions included early discharge planning, shortened ICU stay, modified postoperative dietary and drain management algorithm, rigorous physical therapy with in-hospital gym visit, standardized rectal suppository administration, and close telehealth follow-up post discharge. The trial was powered to detect an increase in postoperative day 5 discharge from 10% to 30% (80% power, α = 0.05, 2-sided Fisher's exact test, target accrual: 142 patients). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (37 WARP, 39 control) were randomized from June 2015 to September 2017. A planned interim analysis was conducted at 50% trial accrual resulting in mandatory early stoppage, as the predefined efficacy end point was met. Demographic variables between groups were similar. The WARP significantly increased the number of patients discharged to home by postoperative day 5 compared with controls (75.7% vs 12.8%; p < 0.001) without increasing readmission rates (8.1% vs 10.3%; p = 1.0). Overall complication rates did not differ between groups (29.7% vs 43.6%; p = 0.24), but the WARP significantly reduced the time from operation to adjuvant therapy initiation (51 days vs 66 days; p = 0.005) and hospital cost ($26,563 vs $31,845; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The WARP can safely reduce hospital length of stay, time to adjuvant therapy, and cost in selected pancreaticoduodenectomy patients without increasing readmission risk.