Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have benefit in cancer clinical trials, real-world applications are lacking. This study describes the method of implementation of a cancer enterprise-wide PROMs platform. METHODS: After establishing a multispecialty stakeholder group within a large integrated health system, domain-specific instruments were selected from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (pain interference, fatigue, physical function, and depression) and were administered at varying frequencies throughout each patient's cancer journey. All cancer patients with an oncologic visit were eligible to complete the PROMs prior to the visit using a patient portal, or at the time of the visit using a tablet. PROMs were integrated into clinical workflow. Clinical partnerships were essential for successful implementation. Descriptive preliminary data were compared using multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors associated with method of PROMs completion. RESULTS: From September 16, 2020 to July 23, 2021, 23 of 38 clinical units (60.5%) implemented PROMs over 2392 encounters and 1666 patients. Approximately one third of patients (n = 629, 37.8%) used the patient portal. Black patients (aOR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) and patients residing in zip codes with higher percentage of unemployment (aOR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.41) were among the least likely to complete PROMs using the patient portal. CONCLUSIONS: Successful system-wide implementation of PROMs among cancer patients requires engagement from multispecialty stakeholders and investment from clinical partners. Attention to the method of PROMs collection is required in order to reduce the potential for disparities, such as Black populations and those residing in areas with high levels of unemployment.

Lung Cancer Screening Criteria and Cardiopulmonary Comorbidities.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening criteria should select candidates with minimal cardiopulmonary comorbidities who are fit for curative lung cancer resection. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 728 patients with lung cancer for screening eligibility using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2013 criteria (n = 370). If ineligible for screening, they were further assessed for eligibility using the USPSTF 2021 (n = 121) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network group 2 (NCCN gp 2) (n = 155). Comparisons of cardiopulmonary comorbidities between patients selected by the different lung cancer screening criteria were performed. Excluding missing data, a similar comparison was done between USPSTF 2013 (n = 283) and PLCOm2012 (risk threshold ≥1.51%) (n = 118). Results: Patients eligible for USPSTF 2021 and NCCN gp 2 had lower rates of airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <0.7) compared with those in USPSTF 2013 (55.4% and 56.8% versus 70.5%). Both USPSTF 2021 and NCCN gp 2 groups had less severe airflow obstruction; only 11.6% and 12.9% of patients, respectively, had percent-predicted FEV1 less than 50% versus 20.3% in the USPSTF 2013 group. Comparing USPSTF 2013 and PLCOm2012 revealed no significant differences in age or the rate of airflow obstruction (p = 0.06 and p = 0.09 respectively). Nevertheless, rates of percent-predicted FEV1 less than 50% and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide less than 50% were lower in the PLCOm2012 group compared with those in the USPSTF 2013 group (22.3% versus 10.2% and 32.6% versus 20.0%), respectively. Conclusions: The USPSTF 2021 qualifies an additional group of screening candidates who are healthier with better lung reserve, translating to better surgical candidacy but potentially more overdiagnosis. The PLCOm2012, with its better accuracy in selecting patients at risk of cancer, selects an older group with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but with good lung reserve and potentially less overdiagnosis.

Developing an algorithm across integrated healthcare systems to identify a history of cancer using electronic medical records.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor registries in integrated healthcare systems (IHCS) have high precision for identifying incident cancer but often miss recently diagnosed cancers or those diagnosed outside of the IHCS. We developed an algorithm using the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify people with a history of cancer not captured in the tumor registry to identify adults, aged 40-65 years, with no history of cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The algorithm was developed at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and then applied to 7 other IHCS. We included tumor registry data, diagnosis and procedure codes, chemotherapy files, oncology encounters, and revenue data to develop the algorithm. Each IHCS adapted the algorithm to their EMR data and calculated sensitivity and specificity to evaluate the algorithm's performance after iterative chart review. RESULTS: We included data from over 1.26 million eligible people across 8 IHCS; 55 601 (4.4%) were in a tumor registry, and 44848 (3.5%) had a reported cancer not captured in a registry. The common attributes of the final algorithm at each site were diagnosis and procedure codes. The sensitivity of the algorithm at each IHCS was 90.65%-100%, and the specificity was 87.91%-100%. DISCUSSION: Relying only on tumor registry data would miss nearly half of the identified cancers. Our algorithm was robust and required only minor modifications to adapt to other EMR systems. CONCLUSION: This algorithm can identify cancer cases regardless of when the diagnosis occurred and may be useful for a variety of research applications or quality improvement projects around cancer care.

Monitoring Lung Cancer Screening Use and Outcomes at Four Cancer Research Network Sites.

RATIONALE: Lung cancer screening registries can monitor screening outcomes and improve quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To describe nascent lung cancer screening programs and share efficient data collection approaches for mandatory registry reporting in four integrated health care systems of the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network. METHODS: We documented the distinctive characteristics of lung cancer screening programs, and we provide examples of strategies to facilitate data collection and describe early challenges and possible solutions. In addition, we report preliminary data on use and outcomes of screening with low-dose computed tomography at each of the participating sites. RESULTS: Programs varied in approaches to confirming patient eligibility, ordering screening low-dose computed tomographic scans, and coordinating follow-up care. Most data elements were collected from structured fields in electronic health records, but sites also made use of standardized order templates, local procedure codes, identifiable hashtags in radiology reports, and natural language processing algorithms. Common challenges included incomplete documentation of tobacco smoking history, difficulty distinguishing between scans performed for screening versus diagnosis or surveillance, and variable adherence with use of standardized templates. Adherence with eligibility criteria as well as the accuracy and completeness of data collection appeared to depend at least partly on availability of personnel and other resources to support the successful implementation of screening. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the effectiveness of lung cancer screening, minimize the burden of data collection, and facilitate research and quality improvement, clinical workflow and information technology should be purposefully designed to ensure that patients meet eligibility criteria and receive appropriate follow-up testing.

Building a virtual cancer research organization.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Research Network (CRN) comprises the National Cancer Institute and 11 nonprofit research centers affiliated with integrated health care delivery systems. The CRN, a public/private partnership, fosters multisite collaborative research on cancer prevention, screening, treatment, survival, and palliation in diverse populations. METHODS: The CRN's success hinges on producing innovative cancer research that likely would not have been developed by scientists working individually, and then translating those findings into clinical practice within multiple population laboratories. The CRN is a collaborative virtual research organization characterized by user-defined sharing among scientists and health care providers of data files as well as direct access to researchers, computers, software, data, research participants, and other resources. The CRN's research management Web site fosters a high-functioning virtual scientific community by publishing standardized data definitions, file specifications, and computer programs to support merging and analyzing data from multiple health care systems. RESULTS: Seven major types of standardized data files developed to date include demographics, health plan eligibility, tumor registry, inpatient and ambulatory utilization, medication dispensing, laboratory tests, and imaging procedures; more will follow. Data standardization avoids rework, increases multisite data integrity, increases data security, generates shorter times from initial proposal concept to submission, and stimulates more frequent collaborations among scientists across multiple institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The CRN research management Web site and associated standardized data files and procedures represent a quasi-public resource, and the CRN stands ready to collaborate with researchers from outside institutions in developing and conducting innovative public domain research.