Immune checkpoint inhibitors: immune-related adverse events, healthcare utilization, and costs among commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used across multiple cancer types and stages and little is known about real-world outcomes. This study sought to determine healthcare utilization, costs, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and all-cause mortality of single-agent versus combination ICI in the USA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted with 2016-2018 data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, consisting of commercial and Medicare-insured adult patients with a cancer diagnosis using ICI in the USA. Outcomes were healthcare utilization, costs, and irAEs (FDA-recognized and others) up to 1-year post-index between patients using ICI monotherapy (mono, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor) and combination therapy (combo, PD-1/PD-L1 with CTLA-4 inhibitors). RESULTS: In total, 9084 patients received monotherapy and 904 patients received combo therapy. Mean age 65 years for mono and 58 years for combo. Overall, the combo arm had higher rates of FDA-recognized irAEs (67.4% vs. 45.9%), especially endocrinopathies (27.7% vs 14.7%) and dermatitis (25.9% vs. 12.4%). All-cause mortality over 1-year follow-up was similar, 30.7% in mono vs 30.8% in combo arms. The combo group had higher rates of all-cause inpatient hospitalizations (55.4% mono vs 65.6% combo) and emergency department (ED) visits (33.7% mono vs 41.4% combo). IrAE-related hospitalizations were higher in combo (55.2% vs 42.1%). IrAE-related ED visits were 15.7% mono vs 22.7% combo. This increased toxicity and health care utilization was reflected in significant differences in healthcare costs. Stark differences were seen in all-cause medical costs as well as costs related to inpatient and ED utilization and costs attributed to irAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of irAEs, healthcare utilization, and costs occur with combination immunotherapy. As further indications are approved for combination ICI, our study highlights the real-world tradeoffs involved with combination therapy regarding burdens of toxicity and increased healthcare utilization.

Health economic implications of complications associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy at a University Hospital: a retrospective cohort cost study.

BACKGROUND: A cost analyses of complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) was performed in a high volume hepato-biliary-pancreatic service. We hypothesised that costs are increased with both severity and number of complications; we investigated the relationship between complications and specific cost centres. METHODS: 100 patients from 2011 to 2016 were included. Data relating to their perioperative course were collected. Complications were documented by the Clavien-Dindo classification and costs were inflated and converted to 2017 USD. RESULTS: Mean hospital costs in complicated patients more than doubled those of uncomplicated patients ($28 330 vs. $57 150, p < 0.0001). Total hospital costs significantly increased with both severity and number of complications. This cost increase was influenced by medical consult, pathology, pharmacy, radiology, ward, intensive care, and allied health costs, but not operating theatre or anaesthesia costs. Postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative haemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying and infection were associated with cost differentials of $65 438, $74 079, $35 620 and $46 316 respectively over uncomplicated patients. CONCLUSION: The development of complications following PD is common, costly and associated with increased length of stay. Costs increased with greater complication severity, and specific complications. The in-depth breakdown of hospital costs suggests specific targets for cost containment.

Discussing prognosis and treatment goals with patients with advanced cancer: A qualitative analysis of oncologists' language.

BACKGROUND: The National Academy of Medicine recommends that cancer patients be knowledgeable of their prognosis to enable them to make informed treatment decisions, but research suggests few patients receive this information. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study describes oncologists' language during discussions of prognosis and treatment goals in clinical interactions with African American patients diagnosed with cancer. DESIGN: We analysed transcripts from video recordings of clinical interactions between patients with Stage III or IV cancer (n=26) and their oncologists (n=9). In-depth discourse analysis was conducted to describe and interpret oncologists' communication behaviours and common linguistic features in the interactions. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were from a larger study of patient-provider communication between African Americans and oncologists at two cancer hospitals in Detroit. RESULTS: Prognosis was discussed in 73.1% (n=19) of the interactions; treatment goals were discussed in 92.3% (n=24). However, analysis revealed that oncologists' description of prognosis was vague (e.g. "prognosis is a bit worse in your case") and rarely included a survival estimate. Oncologists often used ambiguous terminology, including euphemisms and jargon, and emphasized uncertainty (e.g. "lesions are suspicious for the disease"). Conversation about prognosis was frequently brief, moving quickly to the urgency and details of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates how oncologists' language may obscure discussion of prognosis and treatment goals. The identified behaviours may lead to missed opportunities in eliciting and discussing patients' knowledge about and preferences for their care. Patient-, provider- and system-oriented interventions are needed to improve clinical communication, especially among minority patients with advanced cancer.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration.

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy vs. immunotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer and programmed death ligand 1 score <50.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effectiveness of immunotherapy alone or with chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression <50 %. We examined the outcomes of PD-L1 therapy vs. PD-L1 therapy in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment among NSCLC patients with PD-L1 score <50 %. METHODS: We used administrative claims and prior authorization data of a national insurer from November 2015 to July 2021. We selected patients with Stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and PD-L1 expression <50 %. Each patient was required to have ≥1 claim of a PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor. Treatment groups were propensity-score matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics. We measured PD-L1 therapy duration, incident immune-related adverse events (irAEs), healthcare utilization, costs, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the matched sample totaling 176 patients, mean duration of PD-L1 therapy was similar (4.1 [SD 3.3] months combination vs. 4.0 [SD 4.9] months monotherapy, p = 0.800). IrAEs were similar, both for FDA-recognized irAEs (48.9 % combination, 48.9 % monotherapy, p = 0.710) and other types (34.1 % combination, 39.8 % monotherapy, p = 0.473). The combination group had more all-cause inpatient stays, ER visits, and outpatient visits (all p < 0.001). Total adjusted all-cause medical cost was $112,833 (95 % CI $5,548-$251,973) higher for combination therapy. We saw no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09 [95 % CI 0.72-1.65]). CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in adverse drug effects or survival between PD-L1 monotherapy compared to combination therapy for patients with Stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and PD-L1 expression <50 %, though the combination therapy cohort had higher healthcare utilization and costs. MICROABSTRACT: Use of immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and programmed death ligand 1 expression <50 % is understudied. Our observational study using claims and authorization data from a matched sample of 176 patients found no difference in survival or the rate of adverse drug effects between groups, although the chemo-immunotherapy cohort generated higher overall healthcare costs.

Association Between Oncology Clinical Pathway Utilization and Toxicity and Cost Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This retrospective observational study compared cancer care toxicity and cost outcomes for patients with metastatic cancer with nine different cancer types prescribed on- versus off-pathway regimens. METHODS: This study used claims and authorization data from a national insurer between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Participants included adults with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, or uterine cancer, who were prescribed first-line anticancer regimens. Multivariable regressions were used to assess outcomes including counts of emergency room visits or hospitalizations, use of supportive care medications, immune-related adverse events (IRAEs), and health care costs. RESULTS: Of the 8,357 patients in the study, 5,453 (65.3%) were prescribed on-pathway regimens. The on-pathway proportion trended downward, from 74.3% in 2018 to 59.8% in 2021. The on- and off-pathway groups had a similar proportion of patients with treatment-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.080; P = .201) and IRAEs (aOR, 0.961; P = .497). More all-cause hospitalizations (aOR, 1.679; P = .013) were observed among patients with melanoma treated on-pathway. The on-pathway group had higher use of supportive care drugs in bladder cancer (aOR, 4.602; P < .001) and colorectal cancer (aOR, 4.465; P < .001), and lower use in breast (aOR, 0.668; P = .001) and lung cancer (aOR, 0.550; P < .001). On average, on-pathway patients incurred $17,589 less total health care cost (P < .001), and $22,543 lower chemotherapy cost (P < .001) than those from the off-pathway group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that use of on-pathway regimens was associated with significant cost savings. Toxicity outcomes were variable by disease, but overall, there were similar numbers of treatment-related hospitalizations and IRAEs compared to off-pathway regimens. This cross-institutional study provides evidence to support the use of clinical pathway regimens for patients with metastatic cancer.

Association of Patient, Physician, and Practice-Level Factors with Uptake of Payer-Led Oncology Clinical Pathways.

Importance: Payers use oncology clinical pathways programs to increase evidence-based drug prescribing and control drug spending. However, compliance with these programs has been low, which may decrease their efficacy, and factors associated with pathway compliance are unknown. Objective: To determine extent of pathway compliance and identify factors associated with pathway compliance using characteristics of patients, practices, and the companies that develop cancer treatment pathways. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised patients with claims and administrative data from a national insurer and a pathways health care professional between July 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Adult patients with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, and uterine cancer being treated in the first line were included. Six months of continuous insurance coverage prior to the date of treatment initiation was required for determination of baseline characteristics. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with pathway compliance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of a pathway program-endorsed treatment regimen in the first-line setting for metastatic cancer. Results: Among 17 293 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [11.2] years; 9183 [53.1%] women; mean [SD] Black patients per census block, 0.10 [0.20]), 11 071 patients (64.0%) were on-pathway, and 6222 (36.0%) were off-pathway. Factors associated with increased pathway compliance were higher health care utilization during the 6-month baseline period (measured in inpatient visits and emergency department visits) (5220 on-pathway inpatient visits [47.2%] vs 2797 off-pathway [45.0%]; emergency department visits, 3304 [27.1%] vs 1503 [24.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for inpatient visits, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001), volume of patients with this insurance provider per physician (mean [SD] visits: on-pathway, 128.0 [258.3] vs off-pathway, 121.8 [161.4]; aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .002), and practice participation in the Oncology Care Model (on-pathway participation, 2601 [23.5%] vs 1305 [21.0%]; aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23; P = .004). Higher total medical cost during the 6-month baseline period were associated with decreased pathway compliance (mean [SD] costs: on-pathway, $55 990 [$69 706] vs $65 955 [$74 678]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88; P < .001). There was heterogeneity in odds of pathway compliance between different malignancies. Pathway compliance rates trended down from the reference year of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, despite generous financial incentives, compliance with payer-led pathways remained at historically reported low rates. Factors such as increasing exposure to the program due to the number of patients impacted and participation in other value-based payment programs, such as the Oncology Care Model, were positively associated with compliance; factors such as the type of cancer and patient complexity may have played a role, but the directionality of potential effects was unclear.

Trends in Medically Integrated Dispensing Among Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: The integration of pharmacies with oncology practices-known as medically integrated dispensing or in-office dispensing-could improve care coordination but may incentivize overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing. Because little is known about this emerging phenomenon, we analyzed historical trends in medically integrated dispensing. METHODS: Annual IQVIA data on oncologists were linked to 2010-2019 National Council for Prescription Drug Programs pharmacy data; data on commercially insured patients diagnosed with any of six common cancer types; and summary data on providers' Medicare billing. We calculated the national prevalence of medically integrated dispensing among community and hospital-based oncologists. We also analyzed the characteristics of the oncologists and patients affected by this care model. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, the percentage of oncologists in practices with medically integrated dispensing increased from 12.8% to 32.1%. The share of community oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 7.6% to 28.3%, whereas the share of hospital-based oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 18.3% to 33.4%. Rates of medically integrated dispensing varied considerably across states. Oncologists who dispensed had higher patient volumes (P < .001) and a smaller share of Medicare beneficiaries (P < .001) than physicians who did not dispense. Patients treated by dispensing oncologists had higher risk and comorbidity scores (P < .001) and lived in areas with a higher % Black population (P < .001) than patients treated by nondispensing oncologists. CONCLUSION: Medically integrated dispensing has increased significantly among oncology practices over the past 10 years. The reach, clinical impact, and economic implications of medically integrated dispensing should be evaluated on an ongoing basis.

Treatment Experiences with CDK4&6 Inhibitors Among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: To describe patients' perspectives on the use of and potential challenges and barriers with adherence/persistence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4&6i's) to treat metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with patients with MBC in the US who were either current or recent CDK4&6i users, identified from administrative claims of survey-eligible commercial and Medicare Advantage patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between November 1, 2018 and November 1, 2019. Patients were recruited by email and/or mailed letter. The 60-minute telephone interviews were conducted by a trained facilitator using a study-developed interview discussion guide that included topics impacting treatment choice and adherence/persistence. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: All 462 eligible patients were sent a recruitment email and/or letter to which 36 patients responded, consented to participate, and met study inclusion criteria; 25 patients scheduled interviews, and 24 completed them. Study participants were predominately white, non-Hispanic (96%) with a mean age of 59.5 years. Participants reported a largely positive experience and mentioned very few adherence/persistence issues. They further reported appreciating the ease and convenience of oral oncolytics, coped with side effects, had strong medical and social support, and experienced few cost issues. CONCLUSION: The few adherence/persistence issues reported by participants contrasts with other findings of suboptimal oral oncolytic use. Interview themes indicated several factors that likely contributed to the lack of adherence/persistence issues: trusted relationship with oncologist, belief in importance of medication, positive medication views, strong medical and social support, and minimal personal drug cost. Future research should focus on whether and how much these factors impact adherence/persistence in more diverse populations. If adherence/persistence issues are identified in these populations, then it would be appropriate to study the development of interventions that target factors associated with better adherence/persistence.

Association Between a National Insurer's Pay-for-Performance Program for Oncology and Changes in Prescribing of Evidence-Based Cancer Drugs and Spending.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in practice and the largest portion of spending on cancer care. We evaluated the association between a national commercial insurer's ongoing pay-for-performance (P4P) program for oncology and changes in the prescribing of evidence-based cancer drugs and spending. METHODS: We conducted an observational difference-in-differences study using administrative claims data covering 6.7% of US adults. We leveraged the geographically staggered, time-varying rollout of the P4P program to simulate a stepped-wedge study design. We included patients age 18 years or older with breast, colon, or lung cancer who were prescribed cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017. The exposure was a time-varying dichotomous variable equal to 1 for patients who were prescribed a cancer drug regimen after the P4P program was offered. The primary outcome was whether a patient's drug regimen was a program-endorsed, evidence-based regimen. We also evaluated spending over a 6-month episode period. RESULTS: The P4P program was associated with an increase in evidence-based regimen prescribing from 57.1% of patients in the preintervention period to 62.2% in the intervention period, for a difference of +5.1 percentage point (95% CI, 3.0 percentage points to 7.2 percentage points; P < .001). The P4P program was also associated with a differential $3,339 (95% CI, $1,121 to $5,557; P = .003) increase in cancer drug spending and a differential $253 (95% CI, $100 to $406; P = .001) increase in patient out-of-pocket spending, but no significant changes in total health care spending ($2,772; 95% CI, -$181 to $5,725; P = .07) over the 6-month episode period. CONCLUSION: P4P programs may be effective in increasing evidence-based cancer drug prescribing, but may not yield cost savings.

The financial impact of postoperative complications following liver resection.

The aim of the study was to determine the financial burden of complications and examine the cost differentials between complicated and uncomplicated hospital stays, including the differences in cost due to extent of resection and operative technique.Liver resection carries a high financial cost. Despite improvements in perioperative care, postoperative morbidity remains high. The contribution of postoperative complications to the cost of liver resection is poorly quantified, and there is little data to help guide cost containment strategies.Complications for 317 consecutive adult patients undergoing liver resection were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients were stratified based on the grade of their worst complication to assess the contribution of morbidity to resource use of specific cost centers. Costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology.Complications dramatically increased median hospital cost ($22,954 vs $15,593, P < .001). Major resection cost over $10,000 more than minor resection and carried greater morbidity (82% vs 59%, P < .001). Similarly, open resection cost more than laparoscopic resection ($21,548 vs $15,235, P < .001) and carried higher rates of complications (72% vs 41.5%, P < .001). Hospital cost increased with increasing incidence and severity of complications. Complications increased costs across all cost centers. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade I and II) were shown to significantly increase costs compared with uncomplicated patients.Liver resection continues to carry a high incidence of complications, and these result in a substantial financial burden. Hospital cost and length of stay increase with greater severity and number of complications. Our findings provide an in-depth analysis by stratifying total costs by cost centers, therefore guiding future economic studies and strategies aimed at cost containment for liver resection.

Advance Care Planning Claims and Health Care Utilization Among Seriously Ill Patients Near the End of Life.

Importance: Although advance care planning is known to increase patient and caregiver satisfaction, its association with health care utilization is not well understood. Objective: To examine the association between billed advance care planning encounters and subsequent health care utilization among seriously ill patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study conducted from October 1, 2015, to May 31, 2018, used a national commercial insurance claims database to retrieve data from 18 484 Medicare Advantage members 65 years or older who had a claim that contained a serious illness diagnosis. Exposure: A claim that contained an advance care planning billing code between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of intensive therapies, hospitalization, emergency department use, hospice use, costs, and death during the 6-month follow-up period. Results: The final study sample included 18 484 seriously ill patients (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [7.9] years; 10 033 [54.3%] female), 864 (4.7%) of whom had a billed advanced care planning encounter between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. In analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and a propensity score for advance care planning, the presence of a billed advance care planning encounter was associated with a higher likelihood of hospice enrollment (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.52; 95% CI, 2.22-2.86) and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.79-2.88) compared with no billed advance care planning encounter. Although patients with billed advance care planning encounters were also more likely to be hospitalized (IRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49), including in the intensive care unit (IRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.08-1.45), they were less likely to receive any intensive therapies (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92), such as chemotherapy (IRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78). Similar results were observed in a propensity score-matched analysis (99% matched) and in a decedent analysis of patients who died during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with billed advance care planning encounters were more likely than those without these encounters to receive hospice services and less likely to receive any intensive therapies, such as chemotherapy. However, they were also hospitalized more frequently than patients without billed advance care planning encounters. Although these findings were robust to multiple analytic methods, the results may be attributable to residual confounding because of a higher unmeasured severity of illness in the advance care planning group. Additional evidence appears to be needed to understand the effect of advance care planning on these outcomes.

Results From a Health Insurer's Clinical Pathway Program in Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE:: Pathway regimens are value-driven, evidence-based therapies that aim at high-quality, affordable cancer care. There are few real-world data to support the value of such regimens, especially for patients with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Using nationally representative claims data from Anthem, together with clinical data from its Cancer Care Quality Program, we identified patients with breast cancer for whom chemotherapy was initiated between January 2015 and October 2016. On the basis of demographic and clinical characteristics, patients receiving a pathway regimen (on-pathway cohort) were matched to those who did not (off-pathway cohort) using 1:1 propensity score matching. We compared post-6-month quality-of-care outcomes including hospitalization, emergency department visits, need for supportive drugs such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and cost outcomes between the cohorts. RESULTS:: There were 959 patients in each cohort after matching. Patients in both cohorts had a similar age distribution (median age, 52 years in the off-pathway cohort v 53 years in the on-pathway cohort), and most presented with stage II disease (49.4% in the off-pathway cohort v 49.8% in the on-pathway cohort); nearly two thirds of each cohort had hormone receptor positive cancer (67.3% in the off-pathway cohort v 64.9% in the on-pathway cohort). The two cohorts had similar rates of hospitalization and emergency department visits; however, the rate of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was significantly lower in the on-pathway cohort (72.5% in the on-pathway cohort v 82.8% in the off-pathway cohort; odds ratio, 0.55; P ≤ .0001). The average post-6-month cost of care was $16,176 lower (95% CI, -$24,291 to -$8,061; P ≤ .0001) in the on-pathway cohort. CONCLUSION:: Pathway regimens for breast cancer demonstrate an example of high-value care. They are associated with a reduced cost of care without compromising quality of care.

Caring for patients with chronic pain: pearls and pitfalls.

Chronic, nonmalignant pain is a substantial public health problem in the United States. Research over the past 2 decades has defined chronic pain by using a "biopsychosocial model" that considers a patient's biology and psychological makeup in the context of his or her social and cultural milieu. Whereas this model addresses the pathology of chronic pain, it also places many demands on the physician, who is expected to assess and manage chronic pain safely and successfully. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that opioids can be effective in the management of chronic pain, but there has also been a rise in opioid-related overdoses and deaths. Clinicians should be aware of assessment tools that may be used to evaluate the risk of opioid abuse. A basic understanding of chronic pain pathophysiology and a uniform approach to patient care can satisfy the needs of both patients and physicians.

Integration of palliative medicine into routine oncological care: what does the evidence show us?

Palliative medicine is now a recognized medical subspecialty. The goal of palliative medicine is to prevent and relieve suffering, and to support the best possible quality of life for patients and their families, regardless of the stage of their illness.(1) Typically, palliative medicine teams consist of multiple disciplines (such as physicians, advanced practice nurses, social workers, and chaplains) to address several domains of the patient experience. Medical oncologists have routinely provided palliative care to their patients along with antineoplastic therapy. Nevertheless, there is a recognized need for an improvement in palliative care delivery to the patient with advanced cancer. This narrative review outlines recent clinical trials of palliative care being integrated into routine oncological care.

American society of clinical oncology statement: toward individualized care for patients with advanced cancer.

Patients with advanced incurable cancer face complex physical, psychological, social, and spiritual consequences of disease and its treatment. Care for these patients should include an individualized assessment of the patient's needs, goals, and preferences throughout the course of illness. Consideration of disease-directed therapy, symptom management, and attention to quality of life are important aspects of quality cancer care. However, emerging evidence suggests that, too often, realistic conversations about prognosis, the potential benefits and limitations of disease-directed therapy, and the potential role of palliative care, either in conjunction with or as an alternative to disease-directed therapy, occur late in the course of illness or not at all. This article addresses the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) vision for improved communication with and decision making for patients with advanced cancer. This statement advocates an individualized approach to discussing and providing disease-directed and supportive care options for patients with advanced cancer throughout the continuum of care. Building on ASCO's prior statements on end-of-life care (1998) and palliative care (2009), this article reviews the evidence for improved patient care in advanced cancer when patients' individual goals and preferences for care are discussed. It outlines the goals for individualized care, barriers that currently limit realization of this vision, and possible strategies to overcome these barriers that can improve care consistent with the goals of our patients and evidence-based medical practice.

Coping with the oncology workforce shortage: transitioning oncology follow-up care to primary care providers.

An effective response to the impending shortage of oncology services will require different actions from governmental bodies, academic cancer center leaders, medical societies, and community oncology providers.

Addressing Fertility in Patients With Advanced Cancer: How the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Standards and ASCO Guidelines Facilitate Ethical Communication.

The ASCO Recommendations on Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients were issued in 2006, but evidence suggests many oncologists are unaware of the guidelines and are reluctant to initiate conversations pertaining to fertility with patients.