Oncology care providers' perceptions and anticipated barriers regarding the use of geriatric assessment in routine clinic practice: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is currently not a standard of cancer care across Canada. In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, there are no known formal geriatric teams in outpatient oncology settings. Therefore, it is not known whether, how, and to what extent GA is performed in oncology clinics, or what supports are needed to carry out a GA. The objective of this study was to explore Saskatchewan oncology care providers' knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding GA, and their perceived barriers to implementing formal GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, oncology physicians and nurses within the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) were invited to participate in an anonymous survey and individual open-ended interview. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; free-text responses provided in the survey were summarized. Data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 physicians and 30 clinic nurses participated in the survey (response rate: 24% [physicians] and 38.0% [nurses]). In terms of cancer treatment and management, the majority (74% of physicians and 62% of nurses) stated considerations for older adults are different than younger patients. More than half (53% of physicians and 58% of nurses) reported making treatment and management decisions primarily based on judgement versus validated tools. For physicians whose practices involve prescribing chemotherapy (16/19), 75% rarely or never use validated tools (e.g., CARG, CRASH) to assess risk of chemotoxicity for older patients. Lack of time and supporting staff and feeling unsure as to where to refer older patients for help or follow-up were the most commonly voiced anticipated barriers to implementing GA. Two physicians and six nurses (n = 8) participated in the open-ended interviews. Main themes included: (1) tension between knowing the importance of GA versus capacity and (2) buy-in. DISCUSSION: Our findings review barriers and opportunities for implementing GA in oncology care in Saskatchewan and provides foundational knowledge to inform efforts to promote personalized medicine and to optimize cancer care for older adults with cancer in this region.

Qualitative assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of oncologists about precision medicine in cancer patients- study from Lahore, Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine (PM) is in great progressive stages in the West and allows healthcare practitioners (HCPs) to give treatment according to the patient's genetic findings, physiological and environmental characteristics. PM is a relatively new treatment approach in Pakistan Therefore, it is important to investigate the level of awareness, attitude, and challenges faced by oncology physicians while practicing PM for various therapies, especially cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to explore the level of awareness, attitude, and practice of PM in Pakistan along with the challenges faced by the oncologists for the treatment of cancer using the PM approach. METHODS: Phenomenology-based qualitative approach was used. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted using the purposive sampling approach among oncologists in Lahore, Pakistan. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: Out of 14 physicians interviewed 11 were aware of PM. They were keen on training to hone their skills and agreed on providing PM. Oncologists believed PM was expensive and given to affluent patients only. Other impeding factors include cost, lack of knowledge, and drug unavailability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite basic knowledge and will to practice, resource and cost constraints were marked as significant barriers. Additional training programs and inclusion into the curriculum may help to pave the way to PM implementation in the future. In addition, health authorities and policymakers need to ensure a cheaper PM treatment can be made available for all cancer patients.

Comparison of US Oncologist Rurality by Practice Setting and Patients Served.

Importance: Studies of the oncology workforce most often classify physician rurality by their practice location, but this could miss the true extent of physicians involved in rural cancer care. Objective: To compare a method for identifying oncology physicians involved in rural cancer care that uses the proportion of rural patients served with the standard method based on practice location. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used retrospective Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services encounter data on medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons treating Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from May to September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The standard method of classifying oncologist physician rurality based on practice location was compared with a novel method of classification based on proportion of rural patients served. Results: The study included 27 870 oncology physicians (71.3% male), of whom 835 (3.0%) practiced in a rural location. Physicians practicing in a rural location treated a high proportion of rural patients (median, 50.0% [IQR, 16.7%-100%]). When considering the rurality of physicians' patient panels, 5123 physicians (18.4%) whose patient panel included at least 20% rural patients, 3199 (11.5%) with at least 33% rural patients, and 1996 (7.2%) with at least 50% rural patients were identified. Using a physician's patient panel to classify physician rurality revealed a higher number and greater spread of oncology physicians involved in rural cancer care in the US than the standard method, while maintaining high performance (area under the curve, 0.857) and fair concordance (κ, 0.346; 95% CI, 0.323-0.369) with the method based on practice setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, classifying oncologist rurality by the proportion of rural patients served identified more oncology physicians treating patients living in rural areas than the standard method of practice location and may more accurately capture the rural cancer physician workforce, as many hospitals have historically been located in more urban areas. This new method may be used to improve future studies of rural cancer care delivery.

Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. METHODS: We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.

Characterizing Opioid Prescribing Trends of Medical Oncologists From 2013 to 2019: Analysis From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Part D Prescribers Database.

PURPOSE: Opioid prescribing trends in medical oncology are poorly defined past 2017, the year after the CDC updated opioid prescription guidelines in noncancer settings. We aim to characterize pain management by medical oncologists by analyzing opioid and gabapentin prescribing trends from 2013 to 2019, identify physician-related factors associated with prescribing patterns, and assess whether CDC guidelines for nononcologic settings changed prescribing patterns. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Part D Prescribers-by Provider, CMS Medicare Part D Prescribers-by Provider and Drug, and CMS Medicare Physician National Downloadable files from 2013 to 2019 were merged by National Provider Identification. The database included physicians' sex, years of practice, regions, and practice settings. Multivariable binary logistic regression identified significant predictors of total opioid, long-acting opioid, and gabapentin prescriptions. RESULTS: Binary logistic regression modeling revealed no significant difference in mean daily total opioid prescriptions from 2013 to 2017. Daily opioid prescriptions by medical oncologists decreased significantly after 2017 (P < .001). Increased opioid prescribing was associated with physician male sex (P < .001), practicing over 10 years (P < .001), and practice in nonurban areas (P < .001). Opioid prescribing was greatest in the South and Midwest United States (P < .001). The same patterns were observed with total long-acting opioid prescriptions, whereas gabapentin prescribing increased from 2013 to 2019 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Opioid prescriptions by medical oncologists decreased significantly from 2013 to 2019, but this decrease was most substantial from 2017 to 2019. These results may imply that the 2016 CDC guidelines influenced medical oncologists, particularly more junior physicians in urban settings, to manage chronic cancer pain with alternative therapies.

An analysis of medical malpractice claims against medical oncologists from a national database: Implications for safer practice.

Malpractice claims data include valuable information about patient safety. We used mixed methods to analyze claims against medical oncologists (MO) from 2008 to 2019 using a national database. MO claims were compared to a group of other internal medicine subspecialties (OIMS). Logistic regression was used to examine correlates of closing with an indemnity payment. A subset of claims against MO were thematically analyzed using a validated safety incident taxonomy as a framework. 456 claims against MO were compared with 5771 claims against OIMS. MO claims closed with indemnity payments 29.8% of the time versus OIMS 30.3% (p = 0.87). Median MO and OIMS indemnity payments were similar ($190,591 vs. $233,432; p = 0.20). Correlates of MO claims closing with payment included patient assessment, communication among providers, and safety and security as contributing factors. Thematic analysis identified provider cognitive error, adverse drug events and relational problems as the most common safety incidents. MO malpractice claims have similar outcomes to OIMS. We demonstrate the proof-of-concept of applying a safety incident taxonomy to medical malpractice. Finding ways to reduce patient exposure to provider cognitive errors, adverse drug reactions, and communication breakdowns should be strategic priorities for safer cancer care.

Geographic Disparities in Potential Accessibility to Gynecologic Oncologists in the United States From 2001 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To use a spatial modeling approach to capture potential disparities of gynecologic oncologist accessibility in the United States at the county level between 2001 and 2020. METHODS: Physician registries identified the 2001-2020 gynecologic oncology workforce and were aggregated to each county. The at-risk cohort (women aged 18 years or older) was stratified by race and ethnicity and rurality demographics. We computed the distance from at-risk women to physicians. Relative access scores were computed by a spatial model for each contiguous county. Access scores were compared across urban or rural status and racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2020, the gynecologic oncologist workforce increased. By 2020, there were 1,178 active physicians and 98.3% practiced in urban areas (37.3% of all counties). Geographic disparities were identified, with 1.09 physicians per 100,000 women in urban areas compared with 0.1 physicians per 100,000 women in rural areas. In total, 2,862 counties (57.4 million at-risk women) lacked an active physician. Additionally, there was no increase in rural physicians, with only 1.7% practicing in rural areas in 2016-2020 relative to 2.2% in 2001-2005 ( P =.35). Women in racial and ethnic minority populations, such as American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic women, exhibited the lowest level of access to physicians across all time periods. For example, 23.7% of American Indian or Alaska Native women did not have access to a physician within 100 miles between 2016 and 2020, which did not improve over time. Non-Hispanic Black women experienced an increase in relative accessibility, with a 26.2% increase by 2016-2020. However, Asian or Pacific Islander women exhibited significantly better access than non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native women across all time periods. CONCLUSION: Although the U.S. gynecologic oncologist workforce increased steadily over 20 years, this has not translated into evidence of improved access for many women from rural and underrepresented areas. However, health care utilization and cancer outcomes may not be influenced only by distance and availability. Policies and pipeline programs are needed to address these inequities in gynecologic cancer care.

Profile of the Oncology Physician Workforce and the Characteristics of Attrition.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of attrition and the frequency of transition from a primarily clinical role to an industry-related role among oncology physicians. METHODS: We tracked yearly Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) billing between 2015 and 2022 to estimate attrition of oncology physicians. A subanalysis of a random sample of 300 oncologists with fewer than 30 years of experience and who had stopped billing were used to conduct a more thorough assessment of current employment. Employment was primarily found through LinkedIn; otherwise a secondary search was done through a Google search. Type of employer was categorized as industry (pharmaceutical or biotechnology), nonindustry (academic/clinical/government), others, or no information found. The results are provided separately by sex. RESULTS: Of the 16,870 oncologists who billed to CMS in 2015, 3,558 (21%) had stopped billing by 2022. Among a randomly selected 300 oncologists, we found current employment information for 223 (74%); 78 of the 223 (35%) were most recently employed within industry. Among all CMS-billing oncologists, 30% (5,126 of 16,870) identified as female. Women stopped billing at the rate of 18% (929 of 5,126) by 2022. Surgical oncologists had the lowest overall attrition (17%, 149 of 855). Radiation oncologists had 21% (881 of 4,244) overall attrition and 7% (5 of 71) sampled attrition to industry. CONCLUSION: By 2022, 21% of oncology physicians billing to CMS in 2015 had stopped. 78 of the 300 sampled physicians were found to be working in industry. In total, 1 in 17 oncologists (5%) moved to industry over a 5-year period.

Characterization of industry relationships in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done. METHODS: Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology-industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans. RESULTS: There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce.

Financial Toxicity in Cancer Care: Implications for Clinical Care and Potential Practice Solutions.

Patients with cancer face an array of financial consequences as a result of their diagnosis and treatment, collectively referred to as financial toxicity (FT). In the past 10 years, the body of literature on this subject has grown tremendously, with a recent focus on interventions and mitigation strategies. In this review, we will briefly summarize the FT literature, focusing on the contributing factors and downstream consequences on patient outcomes. In addition, we will put FT into context with our emerging understanding of the role of social determinants of health and provide a framework for understanding FT across the cancer care continuum. We will then discuss the role of the oncology community in addressing FT and outline potential strategies that oncologists and health systems can implement to reduce this undue burden on patients with cancer and their families.

Understanding Prescribing Differences Between Urologists and Medical Oncologists in the Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The availability of oral therapies for advanced prostate cancer allows urologists to continue to care for their patients who develop castration resistance. We compared the prescribing practices of urologists and medical oncologists in treating this patient population. METHODS: The Medicare Part D Prescribers data sets were utilized to identify urologists and medical oncologists who prescribed enzalutamide and/or abiraterone from 2013 to 2019. Each physician was assigned to one of 2 groups: enzalutamide prescriber (physicians that wrote more 30-day prescriptions for enzalutamide than abiraterone) or abiraterone prescriber (opposite). We ran a generalized linear regression to determine factors influencing prescribing preference. RESULTS: In 2019, 4,664 physicians met our inclusion criteria: 23.4% (1,090/4,664) urologists and 76.6% (3,574/4,664) medical oncologists. Urologists were more likely to be enzalutamide prescribers (OR 4.91, CI 4.22-5.74, P < .001) and this held in all regions. Urologists with greater than 60 prescriptions of either drug were not shown to be enzalutamide prescribers (OR 1.18, CI 0.83-1.66, P = .349); 37.9% (5,702/15,062) of abiraterone fills by urologists were for generic compared to 62.5% (57,949/92,741) of abiraterone fills by medical oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: There are dramatic prescribing differences between urologists and medical oncologists. A greater understanding of these differences is a health care imperative.

Incorporating Cost Measures Into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: Implications for Oncologists.

PURPOSE: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is currently the only federally mandated value-based payment model for oncologists. The weight of cost measures in MIPS has increased from 0% in 2017 to 30% in 2022. Given that cost measures are specialty-agnostic, specialties with greater costs of care such as oncology may be unfairly affected. We investigated the implications of incorporating cost measures into MIPS on physician reimbursements for oncologists and other physicians. METHODS: We evaluated physicians scored on cost and quality in the 2018 MIPS using the Doctors and Clinicians database. We used multivariable Tobit regression to identify physician-level factors associated with cost and quality scores. We simulated composite MIPS scores and payment adjustments by applying the 2022 cost-quality weights to the 2018 category scores and compared changes across specialties. RESULTS: Of 168,098 identified MIPS-participating physicians, 5,942 (3.5%) were oncologists. Oncologists had the lowest cost scores compared with other specialties (adjusted mean score, 58.4 for oncologists v 71.0 for nononcologists; difference, -12.66 [95% CI, -13.34 to -11.99]), while quality scores were similar (82.9 v 84.2; difference, -1.31 [95% CI, -2.65 to 0.03]). After the 2022 cost-quality reweighting, oncologists would receive a 4.3-point (95% CI, 4.58 to 4.04) reduction in composite MIPS scores, corresponding to a four-fold increase in magnitude of physician penalties ($4,233.41 US dollars [USD] in 2018 v $18,531.06 USD in 2022) and greater reduction in exceptional payment bonuses compared with physicians in other specialties (-42.8% [95% CI, -44.1 to -41.5] for oncologists v -23.6% [95% CI, -23.8 to -23.4] for others). CONCLUSION: Oncologists will likely be disproportionally penalized after the incorporation of cost measures into MIPS. Specialty-specific recalibration of cost measures is needed to ensure that policy efforts to promote value-based care do not compromise health care quality and outcomes.

Oncologist Participation and Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

The merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) is a value-based payment model created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to promote high-value care through performance-based adjustments of Medicare reimbursements. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the participation and performance of oncologists in the 2019 MIPS. Oncologist participation was low (86%) compared to all-specialty participation (97%). After adjusting for practice characteristics, higher MIPS scores were observed among oncologists with alternative payment models (APMs) as their filing source (mean score, 91 for APMs vs. 77.6 for individuals; difference, 13.41 [95% CI, 12.21, 14.6]), indicating the importance of greater organizational resources for participants. Lower scores were associated with greater patient complexity (mean score, 83.4 for highest quintile vs. 84.9 for lowest quintile, difference, -1.43 [95% CI, -2.48, -0.37]), suggesting the need for better risk-adjustment by CMS. Our findings may guide future efforts to improve oncologist engagement in MIPS.

Pharmaceutical industry relationships with oncologists in sub-Saharan Africa.

Health-care systems in sub-Saharan Africa are considered to be new markets for pharmaceutical companies. This perception is particularly relevant within oncology, as the pharmaceutical industry has changed strategic priorities in the past 10 years to focus on cancer. Since the 1930s, pharmaceutical companies have used advertisements, sample drugs, gifts, paid speaking engagements, advisory boards, and trips to conferences to influence clinical practice and policy. A large amount of literature describes the commonness of these practices and their effects on the behaviour of doctors. However, these data come almost exclusively from high-income countries. Industry-doctor relationships are increasingly common in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income and middle-income countries. Although there are undoubtedly risks of industry engagement in low-income and middle-income countries, many programmes with educational, research, and clinical value would not occur in these countries without industry support. Thus, what is known about these relationships in high-income countries will not necessarily apply in low-income and middle-income countries. There is a need for widespread discussion about industry-oncologist interactions across the African continent and context-specific data to understand the potential risks and benefits of these relationships.

The effect of cancer exemption in mandatory-access prescription drug monitoring programs among oncologists.

To address the opioid epidemic, some states mandate that prescribers review a state-run prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database before prescribing opioids. We used Medicare Part D prescriber data from 2013 (baseline) to 2019 to examine the association between state mandatory-access PDMPs, with and without a cancer exemption, and changes in the percent of oncologists' patients with any opioid fill per year, stratified by oncologists' baseline prescribing volume. Among 9746 medical or hematologic oncologists, the proportion of patients prescribed opioids declined after states implemented mandatory-access PDMPs without a cancer exemption overall (-0.49 percentage point, 95% confidence interval = -0.78 to -0.20 percentage point) and among those with above-median baseline prescribing, but not in states with a cancer exemption (-0.16 percentage point, 95% confidence interval = -0.50 to 0.18 percentage point) or with below-median baseline prescribing. Carefully designed mandatory-access PDMPs with cancer exemptions minimize unnecessary reductions in prescription opioid treatments among oncology patients in need of pain management.

Geriatric assessment and the variance of treatment recommendations in geriatric patients with gastrointestinal cancer-a study in AIO oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to detect vulnerabilities for elderly cancer patients. To assess whether results of GA actually influence the treatment recommendations, we conducted a case vignette-based study in medical oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy oncologists gave their medical treatment recommendations for a maximum of 4 out of 10 gastrointestinal cancer patients in three steps: (i) based on tumor findings alone to simulate the guideline recommendation for a '50-year-old standard patient without comorbidities'; (ii) for the same situation in elderly patients (median age 77.5 years) according to the comorbidities, laboratory values and a short video simulating the clinical consultation; and (iii) after the results of a full GA including interpretation aid [Barthel Index, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), Geriatric 8 (G8), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Get Up and Go (TGUG), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), stair climb test]. RESULTS: Data on 164 treatment recommendations were analyzed. The recommendations had a significantly higher variance for elderly patients than for 'standard' patients (944 versus 602, P < 0.0001) indicating a lower agreement between oncologists. Knowledge on GA had marginal influence on the treatment recommendation or its variance (944 versus 940, P = 0.92). There was no statistically significant influence of the working place or the years of experience in oncology on the variance of recommendations. The geriatric tools were rated approximately two times higher as being 'meaningful' (53%) and 'useful for the presented cases' (49%) than they were 'used in clinical practice' (19%). The most commonly used geriatric tool in patient care was the MNA (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The higher variance of treatment recommendations indicates that it is less likely for elderly patients to get the optimal recommendation. Although the proposed therapeutic regimen varied higher in elderly patients and the oncologists rated the GA results as 'useful', the GA results did not influence the individual recommendations or its variance. Continuing education on GA and research on implementation into clinical practice are needed.

Medical Oncologists' Knowledge and Perspectives on the Use of Biosimilars in the United States.

PURPOSE: Despite increasing availability of biosimilar cancer treatments, little is known about oncologists' knowledge and concerns regarding biosimilar use in the United States. We surveyed medical oncologists to examine their knowledge, attitudes, and experience with biosimilars. METHODS: Oncologists recruited via the ASCO Research Survey Pool completed a 29-question survey in 2020 designed with input from clinical and health care system experts and literature review. RESULTS: Of the 269 respondents, most treated patients with biosimilars (n = 236, 88%) and reported that biosimilars were required at their institution (n = 168, 63%). Approximately half (n = 140, 52%) of oncologists correctly responded that biosimilars were not the same as generic medicines. Commonly reported barriers to use of biosimilars included concerns regarding a perceived lack of relevant research (n = 85, 33% reporting quite a bit/very much), the potential for extrapolation (n = 83, 33%), and efficacy limitations (n = 77, 30%). More oncologists from university hospitals (n = 36, 22%) than from community/private hospitals (n = 28, 38%) or private practices (n = 13, 38%) were concerned about biosimilar efficacy. A high proportion of oncologists reported that information on safety (n = 259, 99%) and efficacy (n = 255, 99%) is important when considering whether to use biosimilars. Less than half reported that their institution provided education about biosimilars (n = 108, 40%). CONCLUSION: In this sample of medical oncologists, knowledge about basic features of biosimilars was limited and access to information about biosimilars was insufficient. The present study determined that educational programs on biosimilars for oncologists are needed and identified priorities for such efforts.

Vertical integration of oncologists and cancer outcomes and costs in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The share of oncology practices owned by hospitals (ie, vertically integrated) nearly doubled from 2007 to 2017. We examined how integration between hospitals and oncologists affected care quality, outcomes, and spending among metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data and the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty, we identified Medicare beneficiaries who initiated systemic therapy for mCRPC between 2008 and 2017 (n = 9172). Primary outcomes included 1) bone-modifying agents (BMA) use, 2) time on systemic therapy, 3) survival, and 4) Medicare spending for the first 3 months following therapy initiation. We used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of vertical integration on outcomes, adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. RESULTS: The proportion of patients treated by integrated oncologists increased from 28% to 55% from 2008 to 2017. Vertical integration was associated with an 11.7 percentage point (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.2 to 19.1) increased likelihood of BMA use. There were no satistically significant changes in time on systemic therapy, survival, or total per-patient Medicare spending. Further decomposition showed an increase in outpatient payment ($5190, 95% CI = $1451 to $8930) and decrease in professional service payment (-$4757, 95% CI = -$7644 to -$1870) but no statistically significant changes for other service types (eg, inpatient and prescription drugs). CONCLUSIONS: Vertical integration was associated with statistically significant increased BMA use but not with other cancer outcomes among mCRPC patients. For oncologists who switched service billing from physician offices to outpatient departments, there was no statistically significant change in overall Medicare spending in the first 3 months of therapy initiation. Future studies should extend the investigation to other cancer types and patient outcomes.