Development and perception of surgery-specific goals of care discussions in the preoperative setting: A learning pilot.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions are infrequently documented in the preoperative period. Furthermore, documentation does not consistently address what matters most to patients, although patient values (PV) are central to person-centered care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group was formed. An electronic note comprised of (1) topics of discussion, (2) PV, and (3) advance care planning (ACP), was created and embedded into existing note templates for Gynecologic Surgical Oncology. Surgeons and advanced practice providers (APPs) were educated to conduct and document these conversations in preoperative clinic for patients undergoing cancer surgery for a pilot period. Data were collected regarding usage of the template. Focus groups with surgeons, APPs, and patients were conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed on transcripts. RESULTS: During the pilot, 7 surgeon/APP teams utilized the template on a total of 55 notes. Average number of notes completed per surgeon was 7.8 (SD 8.5). Forty-six notes (84%) included topics of discussion, 15 (27%) included PV, 4 (7%) included ACP. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts revealed that clinicians and patients perceived the initiative to be useful and important, although implementation barriers were identified. CONCLUSION: Creating a surgery-specific GOC template is feasible. Iterative revisions are needed to increase utility in clinic workflows.

Feasibility of a geriatric comanagement (GERICO) pilot program for patients 75 and older undergoing radical cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have shown the beneficial impact of geriatric comanagement (GERICO) on perioperative outcomes of older adults with cancer. We prospectively assessed the feasibility of perioperative GERICO for older adults with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study wherein all patients 75 years and older undergoing radical cystectomy between October 2019 and November 2020 were referred to the Geriatric Service preoperatively. Feasibility was defined according to the percentage of patients who received preoperative evaluation by the Geriatrics Service, who were followed for more than 80% of their inpatient days and who had their surgery rescheduled for logistical reasons. Urology advanced practice provider (APP) satisfaction with the program was measured via an 11-item survey. RESULTS: Sixty-six eligible patients underwent radical cystectomy in the stated time frame; 59 (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 79-97%) were referred to the Geriatric Service for evaluation. The median age of patients who had geriatric comanagement was 79 years; 40 (68%) were male. Forty-one patients (69%) were visited on at least 80% of the days in which they were not in the intensive care unit. No surgeries were rescheduled for logistical reasons. Nine of the 12 urology APPs (75%) responded to the survey; all nine "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed with statements indicating satisfaction with the program. CONCLUSION: Despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, we showed that perioperative GERICO is feasible. Fully powered prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to assess GERICO's impact on perioperative outcomes of older adults with cancer.

Ovarian cancer recurrence detection may not require in-person physical examination: an MSK team ovary study.

OBJECTIVE: Given the inconvenience and financial burden of frequent ovarian cancer surveillance and the risks of in-person visits due to COVID-19, which have led to the acceleration of telehealth adaptation, we sought to assess the role of in-person physical examination for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence among patients enrolled in a routine surveillance program. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017 who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence during first clinical remission. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to compare differences in detection methods and in patient and disease characteristics. RESULTS: Among 147 patients who met our inclusion criteria, there were no recurrences detected by physical examination alone. Forty-six (31%) patients had recurrence first detected by tumor marker, 81 (55%) by radiographic scan, 17 (12%) by presentation of new symptoms, and 3 (2%) by biopsies taken during non-oncological surgery. One hundred and eleven patients (75%) had multiple positive findings at the time of recurrence. Of all 147 patients, 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical examination findings, 106 (72%) had increases in tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In-person physical examination was not a primary means of detection for ovarian cancer recurrence for any patient. Substituting in-person visits for virtual visits that include patient-reported symptoms, alongside a regular surveillance protocol that includes tumor marker testing and imaging, may be a suitable approach for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence while also reducing patient inconvenience and risks to health.