Postoperative Adverse Events Following Neoadjuvant Therapy and Surgery for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer in a Phase 2 Clinical Trial (Alliance A021501).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adverse events (AEs) in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PC) treated with neoadjuvant therapy and pancreatectomy in the national cooperative group setting have not been previously characterized. We conducted a preplanned secondary analysis of patients enrolled on the Alliance A021501 clinical trial to quantify perioperative AE rates. METHODS: The A021501 phase 2 trial randomized patients with BR-PC to receive 8 doses of mFOLFIRINOX (Arm 1) or 7 doses of mFOLFIRINOX and hypofractionated radiotherapy (Arm 2), followed by pancreatectomy (December 31, 2016 to May 31, 2019). Adverse events were assessed 90 days after pancreatectomy. RESULTS: Of 126 enrolled patients, 51 (40%) underwent pancreatectomy (n = 32, Arm 1; n = 19, Arm 2) at 28 institutions. Five (10%) patients required reoperation within 90 days; 56% of patients (n = 27/48) experienced at least one grade 3 or higher AE (50% vs. 67%, p = 0.37). Ninety-day mortality was 2.0%. Readmission was less frequent in Arm 1 (16% vs. 42%, p = 0.05), but there were no differences between study arms in rates of reoperation (13% vs. 5%), pancreatic fistula or intra-abdominal abscess requiring drainage (9% vs. 16%), or wound infection (6% vs. 16%). Pancreatic fistula or intra-abdominal abscess requiring drainage was associated with receipt of adjuvant therapy (p = 0.012). No difference in overall survival was observed based on occurrence of postoperative AEs (hazard ratio = 1.1; 95% confidence interval 0.5-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, rates of postoperative AEs were consistent with those previously reported. Multimodality trials of preoperative therapy for BR-PC may be performed in the cooperative group setting with careful quality assurance and safety monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02839343.

Variation in outcomes and practice patterns among patients with localized pancreatic cancer: the impact of the pancreatic cancer multidisciplinary clinic.

Introduction: Patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) benefit from multi-modality therapy. Whether care patterns and oncologic outcomes vary if a patient was seen through a pancreatic multi-disciplinary clinic (PMDC) versus only individual specialty clinics is unclear. Methods: Using institutional Pancreatic Cancer Registry, we identified patients with localized PDAC from 2019- 2022 who eventually underwent resection. It was our standard practice for borderline resectable (BRPC) patients to undergo ≤4 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, ± radiation, followed by exploration, while locally advanced (LAPC) patients were treated with 4-6 months of chemotherapy, followed by radiation and potential exploration. Descriptive and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to examine the association between clinic type (PMDC vs individual specialty clinics i.e. surgical oncology, medical oncology, or radiation oncology) and study outcomes. Results: A total of 416 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 267 (64.2%) had PMDC visits. PMDC group received radiation therapy more commonly (53.9% versus 27.5%, p=0.001), as compared to individual specialty clinic group. Completion of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) was far more frequent in patients seen through PMDC compared to patients seen through individual specialty clinics (69.3% vs 48.9%). On MVA, PMDC group was significantly associated with receipt of NAT per institutional standards (adjusted OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.46-7.07, p=0.006). Moreover, the average treatment effect of PMDC on progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.45 (95CI: 0.87-8.03) months. No significant association between overall survival (OS) and clinic type was observed. Discussion: Provision of care through PMDC was associated with significantly higher odds of completing NAT per institutional standards as compared to individual specialty clinics, which possibly translated into improved PFS. The development of multidisciplinary clinics for management of pancreatic cancer should be incentivized, and any barriers to such development should be addressed.

EUS-guided hydrogel injection to separate pancreatic head carcinoma from duodenum for enhanced radiotherapy: Multi-site feasibility study.

Background and study aims The proximity of a pancreas head tumor to the duodenum often limits delivery of an ablative dose of radiation therapy. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of using an injectable polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel between the head of the pancreas and duodenum. Patients and methods In a multi-site feasibility cohort study of patients with localized pancreatic cancer, PEG hydrogel was injected under endoscopic ultrasound guidance to temporarily position the duodenum away from the pancreas. Procedure characteristics were recorded, including hydrogel volume and space created. Patients were monitored for adverse events (AEs) and radiotherapy toxicity. Results In all six intent-to-treat patients (four with borderline resectable, two with locally advanced disease), the ability to place and visualize PEG hydrogel and create space between the duodenum and the head of the pancreas was successful. There were no procedure-related AEs resulting in radiotherapy delay. There were no device-related AEs and no reports of pancreatitis. Conclusions PEG hydrogel was successfully placed, created space between the duodenum and the head of the pancreas, and was not associated with major toxicity. Enhancing radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer by using PEG hydrogel to create peri-duodenal space could have beneficial implications for treatment and warrants more exploration.

Treatment Terminations During Radiation Therapy: A 10-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing radiation therapy may terminate treatment for any number of reasons. The incidence of treatment termination (TT) during radiation therapy has not been studied. Herein, we present a cohort of TT at a large multicenter radiation oncology department over 10 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: TTs between January 2013 and January 2023 were prospectively analyzed as part of an ongoing departmental quality and safety program. TT was defined as any premature discontinuation of therapy after initiating radiation planning. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all patients starting radiation planning. All cases were presented at monthly morbidity and mortality conferences with a root cause reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 1448 TTs were identified out of 31,199 planned courses of care (4.6%). Six hundred eighty-six (47.4%) involved patients treated with curative intent, whereas 753 (52.0%) were treated with palliative intent, and 9 (0.6%) were treated for benign disease. The rate of TT decreased from 8.49% in 2013 to 3.02% in 2022, with rates decreasing yearly. The most common disease sites for TT were central nervous system (21.7%), head and neck (19.3%), thorax (17.5%), and bone (14.2%). The most common causes of TT were hospice and/or patient expiration (35.9%), patient choice unrelated to toxicity (35.2%), and clinician choice unrelated to toxicity (11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This 10-year prospective review of TTs identified a year-over-year decrease in TTs as a percentage of planned patients. This decrease may be associated with the addition of root cause reviews for TTs and discussions monthly at morbidity and mortality rounds, coupled with departmental upstream quality initiatives implemented over time. Understanding the reasons behind TTs may help decrease preventable TTs. Although some TTs may be unavoidable, open discourse and quality improvement changes effectively reduce TT incidents over time.

Minorities Face Delays to Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Regardless of Diagnosis Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Our analysis was designed to characterize the demographics and disparities between the diagnosis of pancreas cancer during emergency presentation (EP) and the outpatient setting (OP) and to see the impact of our institutions pancreatic multidisciplinary clinic (PMDC) on these disparities. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective review of our institutional cancer registry and PMDC databases identified patients diagnosed/treated for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2014 and 2022. Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables, and one-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni correction was used for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients met inclusion criteria. Eighty-nine patients (31.1%) were underrepresented minorities (URM). Fifty-seven (64.0%) URMs presented during an EP versus 100 (50.8%) non-URMs (p = 0.037). Forty-one (46.1%) URMs were reviewed at PMDC versus 71 (36.0%) non-URMs (p = 0.10). No differences in clinical and pathologic stage between the cohorts (p = 0.28) were present. URMs took 22 days longer on average to receive treatment (66.5 days vs. 44.8 days, p = 0.003) in the EP cohort and 18 days longer in OP cohort (58.0 days vs. 40.5 days, p < 0.001) compared with non-URMs. Pancreatic Multidisciplinary Clinic enrollment in EP cohort eliminated the difference in time to treatment between cohorts (48.3 days vs. 37.0 days; p = 0.151). RESULTS: Underrepresented minorities were more likely to be diagnosed via EP and showed delayed times to treatment compared with non-URM counterparts. Our PMDC alleviated some of these observed disparities. Future studies are required to elucidate the specific factors that resulted in these findings and to identify solutions.

Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Analysis of Alliance A021501: Preoperative mFOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX Plus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Borderline Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas.

PURPOSE: Alliance A021501 is the first randomized trial to evaluate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this post hoc study, we reviewed the quality of radiation therapy (RT) delivered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SBRT (6.6 Gy × 5) was intended but hypofractionated RT (5 Gy × 5) was permitted if SBRT specifications could not be met. Institutional credentialing through the National Cancer Institute-funded Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) was required. Rigorous RT quality assurance (RT QA) was mandated, including pretreatment review by a radiation oncologist. Revisions were required for unacceptable deviations. Additionally, we performed a post hoc RT QA analysis in which contours and plans were reviewed by 3 radiation oncologists and assigned a score (1, 2, or 3) based on adequacy. A score of 1 indicated no deviation, 2 indicated minor deviation, and 3 indicated a major deviation that could be clinically significant. Clinical outcomes were compared by treatment modality and by case score. RESULTS: Forty patients were registered to receive RT (1 planned but not treated) at 27 centers (18 academic and 9 community). Twenty-three centers were appropriately credentialed for moving lung/liver targets and 4 for static head and neck only. Thirty-two of 39 patients (82.1%) were treated with SBRT and 7 (17.9%) with hypofractionated RT. Five cases (13%) required revision before treatment. On post hoc review, 23 patients (59.0%) were noted to have suboptimal contours or plan coverage, 12 (30.8%) were scored a 2, and 11 (28.2%) were scored a 3. There were no apparent differences in failure patterns or surgical outcomes based on treatment technique or post hoc case score. Details related to on-treatment imaging were not recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Despite rigorous QA, we encountered variability in simulation, contouring, plan coverage, and dose on trial. Although clinical outcomes did not appear to have been affected, findings from this analysis serve to inform subsequent PDAC SBRT trial designs and QA requirements.

Neoadjuvant radioimmunotherapy in pancreatic cancer enhances effector T cell infiltration and shortens their distances to tumor cells.

Radiotherapy is hypothesized to have an immune-modulating effect on the tumor microenvironment (TME) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to sensitize it to anti-PD-1 antibody (a-PD-1) treatment. We collected paired pre- and posttreatment specimens from a clinical trial evaluating combination treatment with GVAX vaccine, a-PD-1, and stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) following chemotherapy for locally advanced PDACs (LAPC). With resected PDACs following different neoadjuvant therapies as comparisons, effector cells in PDACs were found to skew toward a more exhausted status in LAPCs following chemotherapy. The combination of GVAX/a-PD-1/SBRT drives TME to favor antitumor immune response including increased densities of GZMB+CD8+ T cells, TH1, and TH17, which are associated with longer survival, however increases immunosuppressive M2-like tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). Adding SBRT to GVAX/a-PD-1 shortens the distances from PD-1+CD8+ T cells to tumor cells and to PD-L1+ myeloid cells, which portends prolonged survival. These findings have guided the design of next radioimmunotherapy studies by targeting M2-like TAM in PDACs.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy plus rucosopasem in locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: GRECO-2 phase II study design.

Ablative doses of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may improve pancreatic cancer outcomes but may carry greater potential for gastrointestinal toxicity. Rucosopasem, an investigational selective dismutase mimetic that converts superoxide to hydrogen peroxide, can potentially increase tumor control of SBRT without compromising safety. GRECO-2 is a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of rucosopasem in combination with SBRT in locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Patients will be randomized to rucosopasem 100 mg or placebo via intravenous infusion over 15 min, before each SBRT fraction (5 × 10 Gy). The primary end point is overall survival. Secondary end points include progression-free survival, locoregional control, time to metastasis, surgical resection rate, best overall response, in-field local response and acute and long-term toxicity.

The use of high doses of radiation delivered directly to tumors (stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]) may improve survival compared with lower doses of radiation in patients with pancreatic cancer, but it may increase side effects. Rucosopasem, an investigational new drug being developed, can potentially improve the ability of SBRT to treat tumors without decreasing safety. In a previous study, median overall survival was improved when patients were treated with SBRT plus avasopasem, a drug that works the same way as rucosopasem. GRECO-2 is a clinical trial of rucosopasem used in combination with SBRT for treatment of localized pancreatic cancer. Patients will be randomly selected to receive either rucosopasem 100 mg or placebo via intravenous infusion over 15 min, before each SBRT treatment. The main result being studied is overall survival. Additional results include amount of time before tumors start to grow, how often patients get tumors surgically removed, best overall response and long-term safety. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04698915 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with or without selective dismutase mimetic in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has the potential to ablate localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Selective dismutase mimetics sensitise tumours while reducing normal tissue toxicity. This trial was designed to establish the efficacy and toxicity afforded by the selective dismutase mimetic avasopasem manganese when combined with ablative SBRT for localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer who had received at least 3 months of chemotherapy and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at six academic sites in the USA. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 6-12) with a maximum of 24 patients per group, to receive daily avasopasem (90 mg) or placebo intravenously directly before (ie, within 180 min) SBRT (50, 55, or 60 Gy in five fractions, adaptively assigned in real time by Bayesian estimates of 90-day safety and efficacy). Patients and physicians were masked to treatment group allocation, but not to SBRT dose. The primary objective was to find the optimal dose of SBRT with avasopasem or placebo as determined by the late onset EffTox method. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03340974, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2018, and April 29, 2020, 47 patients were screened, of whom 42 were enrolled (median age was 71 years [IQR 63-75], 23 [55%] were male, 19 [45%] were female, 37 [88%] were White, three [7%] were Black, and one [2%] each were unknown or other races) and randomly assigned to avasopasem (n=24) or placebo (n=18); the placebo group was terminated early after failing to meet prespecified efficacy parameters. At data cutoff (June 28, 2021), the avasopasem group satisfied boundaries for both efficacy and toxicity. Late onset EffTox efficacy response was observed in 16 (89%) of 18 patients at 50 Gy and six (100%) of six patients at 55 Gy in the avasopasem group, and was observed in three (50%) of six patients at 50 Gy and nine (75%) of 12 patients at 55 Gy in the placebo group, and the Bayesian model recommended 50 Gy or 55 Gy in five fractions with avasopasem for further study. Serious adverse events of any cause were reported in three (17%) of 18 patients in the placebo group and six (25%) of 24 in the avasopasem group. In the placebo group, grade 3 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were abdominal pain, acute cholangitis, pyrexia, increased blood lactic acid, and increased lipase (one [6%] each); no grade 4 events occurred. In the avasopasem group, grade 3-4 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were acute kidney injury, increased blood alkaline phosphatase, haematoma, colitis, gastric obstruction, lung infection, abdominal abscess, post-surgical atrial fibrillation, and pneumonia leading to respiratory failure (one [4%] each).There were no treatment-related deaths but one late death in the avasopasem group due to sepsis in the setting of duodenal obstruction after off-study treatment was reported as potentially related to SBRT. INTERPRETATION: SBRT that uses 50 or 55 Gy in five fractions can be considered for patients with localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The addition of avasopasem might further enhance disease outcomes. A larger phase 2 trial (GRECO-2, NCT04698915) is underway to validate these results. FUNDING: Galera Therapeutics.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fiducial Placement for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer.

Accurate delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to pancreatic tumors relies on successful EUS-guided placement of fiducial markers. The aim of this study is to report the technical feasibility and safety of EUS-guided fiducial placement and to evaluate the characteristics and technical benefit of SBRT in a cohort of patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). A retrospective chart review was performed for all (n = 82) PC patients referred for EUS-guided fiducial placement by a single endosonographer at a tertiary cancer center. Data regarding EUS-related technical details, SBRT characteristics, adverse events, and continuous visibility of fiducials were recorded and analyzed. Most patients included in the study had either locally advanced disease (32 patients, 39%) or borderline resectable disease (29 patients, 35%). Eighty-two PC patients underwent the placement of 230 fiducial markers under EUS guidance. The technical success rate of the fiducial placement was 98%. No immediate EUS-related adverse events were reported. The average time to the simulation CT after fiducial placement was 3.1 days. Of the 216 fiducial markers used for the SBRT delivery, 202 fiducial markers were visible on both the simulation CT and the cone beam CT scan. A median dose of 40cGY was given to all the patients in five fractions. Of these, 41% of the patients reported no SBRT-related toxicities during the follow-up. Fatigue and nausea were the most reported SBRT-related toxicities, which were seen in 35% of the patients post-SBRT. Our results demonstrate that EUS-guided fiducial placement is safe and effective in target volume delineation, facilitating SBRT delivery in PC patients. Further clinical trials are needed to determine the SBRT-related survival benefits in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Patient-reported Adverse Events During Neoadjuvant Therapy in a Phase 2 Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Trial (Alliance A021501).

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate symptomatic adverse event (AE) rates among patients with pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy on clinical trial (A021501) using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). BACKGROUND: To date, pancreatic cancer clinical trials have measured AEs using standard physician reporting [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)]. Patient-reported symptomatic AEs have been incompletely characterized. METHODS: A021501 (December 31, 2016-January 1, 2019) randomized patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to 8 doses of mFOLFIRINOX (Arm 1) or 7 doses of mFOLFIRINOX+hypofractionated radiotherapy (Arm 2), followed by pancreatectomy and adjuvant FOLFOX6. Patients completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at baseline, on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle, and daily during radiotherapy. RESULTS: Of 126 patients, 96 (76%) initiated treatment and completed a baseline plus at least 1 postbaseline PRO-CTCAE assessment. Diarrhea and fatigue were the only symptomatic grade 3 or higher AEs identified in at least 10% of patients using CTCAE. At least 10% of all patients reported an adjusted PRO-CTCAE composite grade 3 AE during neoadjuvant treatment for 10 of 15 items: anxiety (10%), bloating of abdomen (16%), decreased appetite (18%), diarrhea (13%), dry mouth (21%), fatigue (36%), nausea (18%), generalized pain (16%), abdominal pain (21%), and problems tasting (32%). Decreased appetite was higher in Arm 2 than in Arm 1 ( P =0.0497); no other differences between study arms were observed. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic AEs during neoadjuvant therapy were common and were reported more frequently by patients using PRO-CTCAE than were recorded by clinicians using standard CTCAE.

Effectiveness of the nutrition referral system in a multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer clinic.

PURPOSE: Proactive nutrition screening and intervention is associated with improved outcomes for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To better optimize nutrition amongst our PDAC population, we implemented systematic malnutrition screening in the Johns Hopkins pancreas multidisciplinary clinic (PMDC) and assessed the effectiveness of our nutrition referral system. METHODS: This was a single institution prospective study of patients seen in the PMDC, screened for malnutrition using the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) (score range=0 to 5, score > 2 indicates risk of malnutrition), and offered referrals to the oncology dietitian. Patients that requested a referral but did not attend a nutrition appointment were contacted by phone to assess barriers to seeing the dietitian. Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analyses were carried out to identify predictors of referral status and appointment completion status. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were included in the study, of which 72 (74.2%) requested a referral and 25 (25.8%) declined. Of the 72 patients who requested a referral, 31 (43.1%) attended an appointment with the oncology dietitian. Data on information session attendance was available for 35 patients, of which 8 (22.9%) attended a pre-clinic information session in which the importance of optimal nutrition was highlighted. On MVA, information session attendance was significantly associated with requesting a referral (OR: 11.1, 95% CI 1.12-1.0E3, p=0.037) and successfully meeting with the oncology dietitian (OR: 5.88, 95% CI 1.00-33.3, p=0.049). CONCLUSION: PMDC teams should institute educational initiatives on the importance of optimal nutrition in order to increase patient engagement with nutrition services.

The Current Role of Radiation in Pancreatic Cancer and Future Directions.

Survival outcomes for localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains poor. Multimodality therapeutic regimens are critical to maximizing survival outcomes for these patients, which includes the use of systemic therapy, surgery, and radiation. In this review, the evolution of radiation techniques are discussed with a focus on modern techniques such as intensity modulated radiation and stereotactic body radiation therapy. However, the current role of radiation within the most common clinical scenarios for pancreatic cancer in the neoadjuvant, definitive, and adjuvant settings continues to be highly debated. The role of radiation in these settings is reviewed in the context of historical and modern clinical studies. In addition, emerging concepts including dose-escalated radiation, magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy, and particle therapy are discussed to promote an understanding of how such concepts may change the role of radiation in the future.

Clinical, dosimetric, and reporting considerations for Y-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: updated 2022 recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group.

PURPOSE: In light of recently published clinical reports and trials, the TheraSphere Global Dosimetry Steering Committee (DSC) reconvened to review new data and to update previously published clinical and dosimetric recommendations for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The TheraSphere Global DSC is comprised of health care providers across multiple disciplines involved in the treatment of HCC with yttrium-90 (Y-90) glass microsphere-based transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Literature published between January 2019 and September 2021 was reviewed, discussed, and adjudicated by the Delphi method. Recommendations included in this updated document incorporate both the results of the literature review and the expert opinion and experience of members of the committee. RESULTS: Committee discussion and consensus led to the expansion of recommendations to apply to five common clinical scenarios in patients with HCC to support more individualized efficacious treatment with Y-90 glass microspheres. Existing clinical scenarios were updated to reflect recent developments in dosimetry approaches and broader treatment paradigms evolving for patients presenting with HCC. CONCLUSION: Updated consensus recommendations are provided to guide clinical and dosimetric approaches for the use of Y-90 glass microsphere TARE in HCC, accounting for disease presentation, tumor biology, and treatment intent.

Using patient flow analysis with real-time patient tracking to optimize radiation oncology consultation visits.

PURPOSE: Clinical efficiency is a key component of the value-based care model and a driver of patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to identify and address inefficiencies at a high-volume radiation oncology clinic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient flow analysis (PFA) was used to create process maps and optimize the workflow of consultation visits in a gastrointestinal radiation oncology clinic at a large academic cancer center. Metrics such as cycle times, waiting times, and rooming times were assessed by using a real-time patient status function in the electronic medical record for 556 consults and compared between before vs after implementation of the PFA recommendations. RESULTS: The initial PFA revealed four inefficiencies: (1) protracted rooming time, (2) inefficient communications, (3) duplicated tasks, and (4) ambiguous clinical roles. We analyzed 485 consult-visits before the PFA and 71 after the PFA. The PFA recommendations led to reductions in overall median cycle time by 21% (91 min vs 72 min, p < 0.001), in cumulative waiting times by 64% (45 min vs 16 min; p < 0.001), which included waiting room time (14 min vs 5 min; p < 0.001) and wait for physician (20 min vs. 6 min; p < 0.001). Slightly less than one-quarter (22%) of consult visits before the PFA lasted > 2 h vs. 0% after implementation of the recommendations (p < 0.001). Similarly, the proportion of visits requiring < 1 h was 16% before PFA vs 34% afterward (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PFA can be used to identify clinical inefficiencies and optimize workflows in radiation oncology consultation clinics, and implementing their findings can significantly improve cycle times and waiting times. Potential downstream effects of these interventions include improved patient experience, decreased staff burnout, financial savings, and opportunities for expanding clinical capacity.