Researcher Experience and Comfort With Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM. METHODS: Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site. RESULTS: There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research.

Measuring ovarian toxicity in clinical trials: an American Society of Clinical Oncology research statement.

Anticancer agents can impair ovarian function, resulting in premature menopause and associated long-term health effects. Ovarian toxicity is not usually adequately assessed in trials of anticancer agents, leaving an important information gap for patients facing therapy choices. This American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) statement provides information about the incorporation of ovarian toxicity measures in trial design. ASCO recommends: (1) measurement of ovarian toxicity in relevant clinical trials of anticancer agents that enrol post-pubertal, pre-menopausal patients; (2) collection of ovarian function measures at baseline and at 12-24 months after anticancer agent cessation, as a minimum, and later in line with the trial schedule; and (3) assessment of both clinical measures and biomarkers of ovarian function. ASCO recognises that routine measurement of ovarian toxicity and function in cancer clinical trials will add additional complexity and burden to trial resources but asserts that this issue is of such importance to patients that it cannot continue to be overlooked.

Attention to diet, exercise, and weight in oncology care: Results of an American Society of Clinical Oncology national patient survey.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) surveyed cancer patients to assess practice patterns related to weight, diet, and exercise as a part of cancer care. METHODS: An online survey was distributed between March and June 2020 through ASCO channels and patient advocacy organizations. Direct email communication was sent to more than 25,000 contacts, and information about the survey was posted on Cancer.Net. Eligibility criteria included being aged at least 18 years, living in the United States, and having been diagnosed with cancer. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with recommendation and referral patterns. RESULTS: In total, 2419 individuals responded to the survey. Most respondents were female (60.1%), 61.1% had an early-stage malignancy, and 48.4% were currently receiving treatment. Breast cancer was the most common cancer (35.7%). The majority of respondents consumed ≤2 servings of fruits and vegetables/d (50.5%) and exercised ≤2 times/wk (50.1%). Exercise was addressed at most or some oncology visits in 56.8% of respondents, diet in 50.1%, and weight in 28.0%. Respondents whose oncology provider provided diet and/or exercise recommendations were more likely to report changes in these behaviors vs. those whose oncology provider did not (exercise: 79.6% vs 69.0%, P < .001; diet 81.1% vs 71.3%, P < .001; weight 81.0% vs 73.3%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In a national survey of oncology patients, slightly more than one-half reported attention to diet and exercise during oncology visits. Provider recommendations for diet, exercise, and weight were associated with positive changes in these behaviors, reinforcing the importance of attention to these topics as a part of oncology care.

Understanding the role of advanced practice providers in oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include NPs and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all APPs in oncology and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577 out of 3,055, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is about $10,000 higher than average pay for APPs not in oncology. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 APPs in oncology and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality.

PURPOSE: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct. METHODS: This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified. RESULTS: Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity. CONCLUSION: Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Dónde Están? Latinx/Hispanic Representation in the Oncology Workforce: Present and Future.

This manuscript reviews the status of Hispanic/Latinx physicians in oncology, the benefits and challenges to achieving equitable representation, and potential solutions and actions to increase diversity in the oncology workforce. Persons of Hispanic/Latinx origin comprise 18.7% of the population and 16.8% of the adult population in the United States but are only 4.7% of practicing oncologists. The reasons for the lack of representation of Hispanic/Latinx individuals in medicine are multifaceted and include discrimination and biases, exclusionary practices, financial barriers, and lack of role modeling. As a result, patients are deprived the benefits of a representative workforce, such as improved access, enhanced culturally and linguistically competent care, and minimization of health disparities. Solutions included in the manuscript include a description of efforts by ASCO to improve the representativeness of the oncology workforce through its awards programs and educational efforts, especially for Hispanic/Latinx clinicians. The manuscript also outlines individual actions that attending physicians, senior oncologists, oncology leaders, and hospital/cancer center leadership can take to improve the diversity of the oncology workforce and support our Latinx/Hispanic trainees and colleagues. Improving the representativeness of the oncology workforce will require collective action by institutions, medical societies, and individuals. Nevertheless, widespread commitment to creating an inclusive and supported workforce is necessary to ensure the quality of care for minority patients, reduce existing cancer care disparities, and advance innovation in oncology.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Oncology Practice: Findings of an ASCO Survey.

PURPOSE: Lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in oncology practices limits assessment of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients' experiences and restricts opportunities to improve health outcomes of SGM patients. Despite national calls for routine SOGI data collection, individual-level and institutional barriers hinder progress. This study aimed to identify these barriers in oncology. METHODS: An online survey of ASCO members and others assessed SOGI data collection in oncology practices, institutional characteristics related to SOGI data collection, respondents' attitudes about SOGI data and SGM patients, and respondent demographics. Logistic regression calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for factors associated with sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) data collection. RESULTS: Less than half of 257 respondents reported institutional SO and GI data collection (40% and 46%, respectively), whereas over a third reported no institutional data collection (34% and 32%, respectively) and the remainder were unsure (21% and 17%, respectively). Most respondents felt that knowing both SO and GI was important for quality care (77% and 85%, respectively). Collection of SO and GI was significantly associated in separate models with leadership support (ORs = 8.01 and 6.02, respectively), having resources for SOGI data collection (ORs = 10.6 and 18.7, respectively), and respondents' belief that knowing patient SO and GI is important (ORs = 4.28 and 2.76, respectively). Themes from qualitative comments mirrored the key factors identified in our quantitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Three self-reinforcing factors emerged as critical drivers for collecting SOGI data: leadership support, dedicated resources, and individual respondents' attitudes. Policy mandates, implementation science, and clinical reimbursement are strategies to advance meaningful data collection and use in clinical practice.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Individualizing Dose Selection for Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatment goals for patients with metastatic cancer include prolongation and maintenance of quality of life. Patients and oncologists have questioned the current paradigm of initial dose selection for systemic therapy; however, data on oncologists' dose selection strategies and beliefs are lacking. METHODS: We conducted an electronic international survey of medical oncologists who treat patients with breast and/or gastrointestinal cancers. Survey questions addressed experiences with, and attitudes toward, dose reduction at initiation (DRI) of a new systemic therapy for patients with metastatic cancer. RESULTS: Among 3,099 eligible oncologists, 367 responded (response rate 12%). Most (52%) reported using DRI at least 10% of the time to minimize toxicities. Gastrointestinal specialists were more likely to report DRI ≥ 10% of the time (72% v 50% of generalists and 51% of breast specialists, P < .005). Of those who dose reduced ≥ 10% of the time, 89% reported discussing potential tradeoffs between efficacy and toxicity with patients. Overall, 65% agreed it is acceptable to lower starting doses to reduce side effects even if it compromises efficacy; younger clinicians were more likely to agree (P < .005). There was strong support (89%) for future trials to determine optimal effective, rather than maximum tolerated, dose. CONCLUSION: Oncology practice varies with regard to discussion and individualized selection of starting doses in the metastatic setting. This study demonstrates a need for consideration of shared decision making regarding initial dose selection and strong support among oncologists for clinical studies to define optimal dosing and best practices for individualizing care.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Impact of Broadening Trial Eligibility Criteria for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Analysis of Select ASCO-Friends Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials often accrue slowly or miss enrollment targets. Strict eligibility criteria are a major reason. Restrictive criteria also limit opportunities for patient participation while compromising external validity of trial results. We examined the impact of broadening select eligibility criteria on characteristics and number of patients eligible for trials, using recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A retrospective, observational analysis used electronic health record data from ASCO's CancerLinQ Discovery database. Study cohort included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated from 2011 to 2018. Patients were grouped by traditional criteria [no brain metastases, no other malignancies, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 60 mL/minute] and broadened criteria (including brain metastases, other malignancies, and CrCl ≥ 30 mL/minute). RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 10,500 patients. Median age was 68 years, and 73% of patients were White. Most patients had stage IV disease (65%). A total of 5,005 patients (48%) would be excluded from trial participation using the traditional criteria. The broadened criteria, however, would allow 98% of patients (10,346) to be potential participants. Examination of patients included by traditional criteria (5,495) versus those added (4,851) by broadened criteria showed that the number of women, patients aged 75+ years, and those with stage IV cancer was significantly greater using broadened criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of real-world data demonstrated that broadening three common eligibility criteria has the potential to double the eligible patient population and include trial participants who are more representative of those encountered in practice.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Performance Status Work Group.

PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is one of the most common eligibility criteria. Many trials are limited to patients with high-functioning PS, resulting in important differences between trial participants and patient populations with the disease. In addition, existing PS measures are subjective and susceptible to investigator bias. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multidisciplinary working group of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research evaluated how PS eligibility criteria could be more inclusive. The working group recommendations are based on a literature search, review of trials, simulation study, and multistakeholder consensus. The working group prioritized inclusiveness and access to investigational therapies, while balancing patient safety and study integrity. RESULTS: Broadening PS eligibility criteria may increase the number of potentially eligible patients for a given clinical trial, thus shortening accrual time. It may also result in greater participant diversity, potentially reduce trial participant and patient disparities, and enable clinicians to more readily translate trial results to patients with low-functioning PS. Potential impact on outcomes was explored through a simulation trial demonstrating that when the number of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS2 participants was relatively small, the effect on the estimated HR and power was modest, even when PS2 patients did not derive a treatment benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding PS eligibility criteria to be more inclusive may be justified in many cases and could result in faster accrual rates and more representative trial populations.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Washout Period and Concomitant Medication Work Group.

PURPOSE: Washout periods and concomitant medication exclusions are common in cancer clinical trial protocols. These exclusion criteria are often applied inconsistently and without evidence to justify their use. The authors sought to determine how washout period and concomitant medication allowances can be broadened to speed trial enrollment and improve the generalizability of trial data to a larger oncology practice population without compromising the safety of trial participants. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multistakeholder working group was convened to define problems associated with excessively long washout periods and exclusion of patients due to concomitant medications. The group performed a literature search and evaluated study data from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), Emory University School of Medicine (Atlanta, GA), and the FDA to understand recent approaches to these eligibility criteria. The group convened to develop consensus recommendations for broadened eligibility criteria. RESULTS: The data analysis found that exclusion criteria based on washout periods and concomitant medications are frequently inconsistent and lack scientific rationale. Scientific rationale for appropriate eligibility criteria are presented in the article; for washout periods, rationale is presented by treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Arbitrary or blanket washout and concomitant medication exclusions should be eliminated. Where there is evidence to support them, clinically relevant washout periods and concomitant medication-related eligibility criteria may be included.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Continuing to Broaden Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative and Inclusive: ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.

PURPOSE: Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria (EC) limit the number of patients who can enroll and potentially benefit from protocol-driven, investigational treatment plans and reduce the generalizability of trial results to the broader population. Following publication of expert stakeholder recommendations for broadening EC in 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) convened working groups to produce additional recommendations and analyze the potential impact on clinical trials using real-world data. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Multistakeholder working groups were appointed by an ASCO-Friends leadership group to propose recommendations for more inclusive EC related to: washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory reference ranges and test intervals, and performance status. RESULTS: The four working groups, ASCO Board of Directors, and Friends leadership support the recommendations included in this statement to modernize EC related to washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory references ranges and test intervals, and performance status to make trial populations more inclusive and representative of cancer patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the recommendations is intended to result in greater ease of determining patient eligibility. Increased opportunities for patient participation in research will help address longstanding underrepresentation of certain groups in clinical trials and produce evidence that is more informative for a broader patient population. More patients eligible will also likely speed clinical trial accrual.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Impact of Pharmacy Benefit Managers on Oncology Practices and Patients.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are thoroughly integrated into the drug supply chain as administrators of prescription drug benefits for private insurers, self-insuring business, and government health plans. As the role of PBMs has expanded, their opaque business practices and impact on drug prices have come under increasing scrutiny. PBMs are particularly influential in oncology care because prescription drugs play a major role in the treatment of most cancers and an increasing number of patients with cancer are treated with oral oncology agents managed by PBMs. There is concern that some PBM practices may threaten access to high-quality cancer care and may increase the financial and administrative burden on patients and practices. In this article, we review the role of PBMs in prescription drug coverage and reimbursement, discuss the impact of PBMs on oncology care, and present data from the 2018 ASCO Practice Survey assessing the knowledge and attitude of oncology practices toward PBMs.

Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap: Three Institutional Approaches.

Patients in rural areas face limited access to medical and oncology providers, long travel times, and low recruitment to clinical trials, all of which affect quality of care and health outcomes. Rural counties also have high rates of cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes. On April 10, 2019, ASCO hosted Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap, the second event in its State of Cancer Care in America series. The event focused on two aspects of rural cancer care: a review of the major issues and concerns in delivering rural cancer care and a discussion of creative solutions to address rural-nonrural disparities. This article draws from the event and supporting literature to summarize the challenges to delivering high-quality care in rural communities, update ASCO's workforce data on the geographic distribution of oncologists, and highlight 3 institutional approaches to addressing these challenges in diverse rural settings. The experience of the 3 institutions featured in the article suggests that increasing rural patients' access to care requires expanding services and decreasing travel distances, mitigating financial burdens when insurance coverage is limited, opening avenues to clinical trial participation, and creating partnerships between providers and community leaders to address local gaps in care. Because the characteristics of rural communities, health care resources, and patient populations are not homogeneous, rural health disparities require local solutions that are based on community needs, available resources, and trusting and collaborative partnerships.

Early Impact of COVID-19 on the Conduct of Oncology Clinical Trials and Long-Term Opportunities for Transformation: Findings From an American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial-related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

Implementing Precision Medicine in Community-Based Oncology Programs: Three Models.

The use of precision medicine and the number of genomic-based treatments and immunotherapies is increasing. Nevertheless, oncology providers face challenges to implementing precision medicine, including in community practices, where most patients receive treatment. On January 31, 2018, ASCO hosted Precision Medicine: Expanding Opportunities, the inaugural event in ASCO's new State of Cancer Care in America (SOCCA) event series. This article draws from the inaugural SOCCA event and the experiences of the SOCCA event participants to summarize the opportunities and challenges of precision medicine, and to highlight three successful models of implementing precision oncology in large, multisite community practices or networks: (1) Intermountain Healthcare, (2) Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, and (3) National Cancer Care Alliance. The experience of these practices suggests that practice innovations that offer clinical decision support through molecular tumor boards and clinical pathways, and administrative support for prior authorization and clinical trial matching are key to successful implementation of large-scale, community-based precision medicine programs.

Assessing an ASCO Decision Aid for Improving the Accuracy and Attribution of Serious Adverse Event Reporting From Investigators to Sponsors.

PURPOSE: Investigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid. METHODS: A preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size. RESULTS: The Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%). CONCLUSION: The Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool's impact.

The State of Oncology Practice in America, 2018: Results of the ASCO Practice Census Survey.

PURPOSE: To describe the US hematology and medical oncology practice landscape and to report findings of the sixth annual ASCO Oncology Practice Census survey. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: ASCO used Medicare Physician Compare data to characterize oncology practices in the United States. Practice size, number of care sites, and geographic distribution were determined. Trends in the number and size of practices from 2013 to 2017 were examined. All US oncology practices were targeted for the survey; survey responses were linked to the practices identified from Physician Compare to augment results and assess generalizability. RESULTS: More than 2,200 hematology/oncology practices provided care to adult patients in 2017. We observed annual decreases in the number of practices and annual increases in practice size. Of the 2017 practices, 394 (18%) completed the survey and accounted for 58% of the US hematologist/oncologist workforce (n = 7,203). Respondents tended to be larger and encompass more sites of care than nonrespondents. Surveyed practices cited payers (58%), competition (38%), and staffing (37%) as primary sources of strain. Prior authorization was dominant among payer pressures (78%). Electronic health records remained a burden on practices, with only 15% reporting full interoperability. CONCLUSION: The results of ASCO's 2017 survey indicate that oncology practices are challenged by day-to-day operations, often related to payment, reimbursement, and competition. Our findings likely represent conservative estimates of such burdens because they are driven by responses from midsized to large-sized organizations, which have lower relative administrative burden, greater market influence, and potentially better ability to adapt in a changing health care environment.