Veterans Health Administration National TeleOncology Service.

PURPOSE: As the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) is a leader in telehealth-delivered care. All 10 million Veterans cared for within the VA are eligible for telehealth. The VA cares for approximately 46,000 Veteran patients with newly diagnosed cancer and an estimated 400,000 prevalent cases annually. With nearly 38% of VA health care system users residing in rural areas and only 44% of rural counties having an oncologist, many Veterans lack local access to specialized cancer services. METHODS: We describe the VA's National TeleOncology (NTO) Service. NTO was established to provide Veterans with the opportunity for specialized treatment regardless of geographical location. Designed as a hub-and-spoke model, VA oncologists from across the country can provide care to patients at spoke sites. Spoke sites are smaller and rural VA medical centers that are less able to independently provide the full range of services available at larger facilities. In addition to smaller rural spoke sites, NTO also provides subspecialized oncology care to Veterans located in larger VA medical facilities that do not have subspecialties available or that have limited capacity. RESULTS: As of fiscal year 2021, 23 clinics are served by or engaged in planning for delivery of NTO and there are 24 physicians providing care through the NTO virtual hub. Most NTO physicians continue to provide patient care in separate traditional in-person clinics. Approximately 4,300 unique Veterans have used NTO services. Approximately half (52%) of Veterans using NTO lived in rural areas. Most of these Veterans had more than one remote visit through NTO. CONCLUSION: NTO is a state-of-the-art model that has the potential to revolutionize the way cancer care is delivered, which should improve the experience of Veterans receiving cancer care.

The cost, survival, and quality-of-life implications of guideline-discordant imaging for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for incident prostate cancer staging imaging have been widely circulated and accepted as best practice since 1996. Despite these clear guidelines, wasteful and potentially harmful inappropriate imaging of men with prostate cancer remains prevalent. AIM: To understand changing population-level patterns of imaging among men with incident prostate cancer, we created a state-transition microsimulation model based on existing literature and incident prostate cancer cases. METHODS: To create a cohort of patients, we identified incident prostate cancer cases from 2004 to 2009 that were diagnosed in men ages 65 and older from SEER. A microsimulation model allowed us to explore how this cohort's survival, quality of life, and Medicare costs would be impacted by making imaging consistent with guidelines. We conducted a probabilistic analysis as well as one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: When only imaging high-risk men compared to the status quo, we found that the population rate of imaging dropped from 53 to 38% and average per-person spending on imaging dropped from $236 to $157. The discounted and undiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated that ideal upfront imaging reduced costs and slightly improved health outcomes compared with current practice patterns, that is, guideline-concordant imaging was less costly and slightly more effective. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the potential reduction in cost through the correction of inappropriate imaging practices. These findings highlight an opportunity within the healthcare system to reduce unnecessary costs and overtreatment through guideline adherence.

A Clinical Reminder Order Check Intervention to Improve Guideline-concordant Imaging Practices for Men With Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT: (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSION: While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a Computerized Patient Record System-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer.

Exploring Variation in the Use of Conservative Management for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

Current guidelines recommend conservative management as the preferred option for most low-risk prostate cancer cases, with certain possible exceptions (age <55yr, African Americans, and high-volume grade group 1). Although previous studies have documented substantial heterogeneity in the uptake of conservative management, less is known about the underlying reason for this variation and whether it is due to guideline-concordant factors (age, race, and biopsy cancer volume). We explored variation in the use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer among 20 597 men diagnosed in the US Veterans Affairs health care system from 2010 to 2016. Conservative management increased substantially over this time from 51% to 76% (p< 0.001). However, there was substantial variation by facility (35-100%). Multivariable analysis revealed that patient factors included in the guidelines (e.g., age and biopsy cores), other patient factors (eg, marital status and PSA) and non-patient factors (eg, geographic region, case volume, year) were associated with conservative management use. In conclusion, even within an integrated health care system, there remains significant heterogeneity in the uptake of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer. Both guideline-concordant factors and other factors not discussed in the guidelines were associated with conservative management use. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the US Veterans Affairs health care system the vast majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer were managed conservatively by 2016, although there was significant variation by facility. Patient factors specifically mentioned in guidelines had the greatest impact on prediction of conservative management.

Quantifying downstream impact of inappropriate staging imaging in a cohort of veterans with low- and intermediate-risk incident prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: According to current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, routine imagining for staging low-risk prostate cancer is not recommended. However, extensive overuse of guideline-discordant imaging continues to persist. Incidental findings are common on imaging and little is known about the optimal management. Rates of incidental findings vs. false positive diagnosis from inappropriate imaging are poorly understood and have yet to be quantified for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of positive radiologic findings in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer during initial staging at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients' medical records from the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System for diagnosis from 2005 to 2015. We reviewed each individual's prebiopsy prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and clinical stage. We also determined if imaging obtained yielded a false positive, incidental finding, or if metastatic disease occurred within the 6 months following initial diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 414 men, who were classified as low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer and underwent inappropriate staging imaging of 4,306 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of these 414 men, 178 (43%) had additional follow-up imaging for positive findings. We calculated an incidental finding rate of 10% and a false positive rate of 38% for patients. Five (1%) patients had metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations, imaging overuse remains an issue for low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. The false positive rate found in this analysis is alarmingly high at 38%. This use of scans is burdensome to the healthcare system and patient. This study highlights the frequency of inappropriate imaging and its negative consequences.

Appropriateness of Prostate Cancer Imaging among Veterans in a Delivery System without Incentives for Overutilization.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate prostate cancer imaging in an integrated health care system. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Veterans Health Administration Central Cancer Registry linked to VA electronic medical records and Medicare claims (2004-2008). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of VA patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 45,084). Imaging (CT, MRI, bone scan, PET) use was assessed among patients with low-risk disease, for whom guidelines recommend against advanced imaging, and among high-risk patients for whom guidelines recommend it. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found high rates of inappropriate imaging among men with low-risk prostate cancer (41 percent) and suboptimal rates of appropriate imaging among men with high-risk disease (70 percent). Veterans utilizing Medicare-reimbursed care had higher rates of inappropriate imaging [OR: 1.09 (1.03-1.16)] but not higher rates of appropriate imaging. Veterans treated in middle [OR: 0.51 (0.47-0.56)] and higher [OR: 0.50 (0.46-0.55)] volume medical centers were less likely to undergo inappropriate imaging without compromising appropriate imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the overutilization of imaging, even in an integrated health care system without financial incentives encouraging provision of health care services. Paradoxically, imaging remains underutilized among high-risk patients who could potentially benefit from it most.