Evaluation of a novel augmented reality educational tool and its effects on patient experience: A randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: Patient education is an essential element of the treatment pathway. Augmented reality (AR), with disease simulations and three-dimensional visuals, offers a developing approach to patient education. We aim to determine whether this tool can increase patient understanding of their disease and post-visit satisfaction in comparison to current standard of care (SOC) educational practices in a randomized control study. Methods: Our single-site study consisted of 100 patients with initial diagnoses of kidney masses or stones randomly enrolled in the AR or SOC arm. In the AR arm, a physician used AR software on a tablet to educate the patient. SOC patients were educated through traditional discussion, imaging, and hand-drawn illustrations. Participants completed pre- and post-physician encounter surveys adapted from the Press Ganey® patient questionnaire to assess understanding and satisfaction. Their responses were evaluated in the Readability Studio® and analyzed to quantify rates of improvement in self-reported understanding and satisfaction scores. Results: There was no significant difference in participant education level (P = 0.828) or visit length (27.6 vs. 25.0 min, P = 0.065) between cohorts. Our data indicate that the rate of change in pre- to post-visit self-reported understanding was similar in each arm (P ≥ 0.106 for all responses). The AR arm, however, had significantly higher patient satisfaction scores concerning the educational effectiveness and understanding of images used during the consultation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: While AR did not significantly increase self-reported patient understanding of their disease compared to SOC, this study suggests AR as a potential avenue to increase patient satisfaction with educational tools used during consultations.

Quality Improvement in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Outcome Improvement Through Data Review.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a complex operation in which outcomes are profoundly influenced by operative experience and volume. We report the effects of experience and innovation on outcomes in minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: Esophageal resections for cancer from 2007 to 2016 at Levine Cancer Institute at Carolinas Medical Center (Charlotte, NC) were reviewed. During this time, three changes in technique were made to improve outcomes: vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit to improve anastomotic healing (beginning at case #63), one-stage approach to permit access to abdomen and chest through one draped surgical field (case #82), and adoption of a lung-protective anesthetic protocol (case #101). Mortality, operative time, complications, and length of stay were analyzed relative to these interventions using GLM regression. RESULTS: 200 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy. There were no mortalities at 30 days, and no change in mortality rate at 60 and 90 days. Anastomotic leak decreased significantly after the introduction of intraoperative vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit (3.6 vs 19.4%). Operative time decreased with adoption of a one-stage approach (416 vs 536 min). Pulmonary complications decreased coincident with a change in anesthetic technique (pneumonia 6 vs 28%). Lymph node harvest increased over time. Length of stay was driven primarily by complications and decreased with operative experience. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications, operative time, and length of stay decreased with case experience and alterations in surgical and anesthetic technique. We believe that adoption of the techniques and technology described herein can reduce complications, reduce hospital stay, and improve patient outcomes.

Using patient-reported religious/spiritual concerns to identify patients who accept chaplain interventions in an outpatient oncology setting.

PURPOSE: The goals of this study were to (1) describe the prevalence and correlates of patient-reported religious/spiritual (R/S) needs in outpatient oncology patients and (2) estimate the associations of R/S concerns with acceptance of an R/S intervention offered by phone. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from distress screenings and spiritual care interventions at an outpatient cancer center from March 1, 2017 to May 9, 2017. Patients (n = 1249) used a tablet to self-report the following R/S concerns: spiritual or religious concern, isolation, struggle to find hope/meaning in life, concern for family, fear of death, shame/guilt, and doubts about faith. Patients were also screened for anxiety, depression, and distress. A chaplain contacted patients that reported one or more R/S concerns to offer R/S interventions via telephone or in person. RESULTS: Approximately one third (29.9%) of surveyed patients indicated at least one R/S need. Younger age, female gender, anxiety, depression, and distress were associated with indication of specific R/S concerns. Fear of death (OR 1.64 [1.02, 2.66], p = 0.043), struggle to find meaning/hope in life (OR 2.47 [1.39, 4.39], p = 0.002), and anxiety (p = 1.003) were associated with increased odds of intervention acceptance. CONCLUSION: Effective screening practices are needed for chaplains to prioritize patients most in need. This exploratory study suggests that screening for struggle to find meaning/hope in life, fear of death, and anxiety will help chaplains identify patients who have R/S concerns and will likely accept R/S interventions. Developing effective telehealth practices like this is an important direction for the field.

External validity of two nomograms for predicting distant brain failure after radiosurgery for brain metastases in a bi-institutional independent patient cohort.

Patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases (BM) are at increased risk of distant brain failure (DBF). Two nomograms have been recently published to predict individualized risk of DBF after SRS. The goal of this study was to assess the external validity of these nomograms in an independent patient cohort. The records of consecutive patients with BM treated with SRS at Levine Cancer Institute and Emory University between 2005 and 2013 were reviewed. Three validation cohorts were generated based on the specific nomogram or recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) entry criteria: Wake Forest nomogram (n = 281), Canadian nomogram (n = 282), and Canadian RPA (n = 303) validation cohorts. Freedom from DBF at 1-year in the Wake Forest study was 30% compared with 50% in the validation cohort. The validation c-index for both the 6-month and 9-month freedom from DBF Wake Forest nomograms was 0.55, indicating poor discrimination ability, and the goodness-of-fit test for both nomograms was highly significant (p < 0.001), indicating poor calibration. The 1-year actuarial DBF in the Canadian nomogram study was 43.9% compared with 50.9% in the validation cohort. The validation c-index for the Canadian 1-year DBF nomogram was 0.56, and the goodness-of-fit test was also highly significant (p < 0.001). The validation accuracy and c-index of the Canadian RPA classification was 53% and 0.61, respectively. The Wake Forest and Canadian nomograms for predicting risk of DBF after SRS were found to have limited predictive ability in an independent bi-institutional validation cohort. These results reinforce the importance of validating predictive models in independent patient cohorts.

Pathologic Complete Response Rates After Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with decreased local recurrence and increased overall survival. This study utilizes a national dataset to identify predictors of pCR in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer (2004-2014) who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection. Unadjusted associations were assessed using rank-sum tests and χ 2 tests where appropriate. Backward elimination and forward selection multivariable logistic regression models were created to determine the relationship of annual surgical volume with pCR rate, adjusting for preoperative characteristics and radiation-surgery interval. Statistical tests were two-sided, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: A total of 27,532 patients from 1179 participating hospitals met the inclusion criteria. Generalized linear mixed models demonstrated that the odds of achieving pCR was independently associated with more recent diagnosis, female sex, private insurance, lower grade, lower clinical T classification, lower clinical N classification, increasing interval between the end of radiation and surgery, and treatment at higher-volume institutions. CONCLUSIONS: pCR was associated with favorable tumor factors, insurance status, time between radiation and surgery, and institutional volume. It is not clear what is driving the higher rates of pCR at high-volume institutions. Research targeted at understanding processes that are associated with pCR in high-volume institutions is needed so that similar results can be achieved across the spectrum of facilities caring for patients in this population.

Surgical Decision Making in the BRCA-Positive Population: Institutional Experience and Comparison with Recent Literature.

A retrospective study was performed to document the uptake and extent of surgical intervention in patients with a known mutation in the BRCA1/2 genes and associated outcomes. Data were collected retrospectively on BRCA-positive patients with and without cancer at the time of genetic testing. Our findings were compared to those published in the current literature. Of patients with cancer at testing, 61% chose bilateral mastectomies. Of patients without cancer, 54% chose risk-reducing surgery (RRS) including risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), or both. Time to surgery was significantly shorter to RRSO than to RRM. The literature suggests and our data support that acceptance of RRM in the BRCA-positive population has gradually increased over time. Consistently high rates of RRSO uptake and short intervals from time-of-testing to RRSO demonstrate that RRSO is still more acceptable to this population than RRM.

External Validity of a Risk Stratification Score Predicting Early Distant Brain Failure and Salvage Whole Brain Radiation Therapy After Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases.

BACKGROUND: A scoring system using pretreatment factors was recently published for predicting the risk of early (≤6 months) distant brain failure (DBF) and salvage whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone. Four risk factors were identified: (1) lack of prior WBRT; (2) melanoma or breast histologic features; (3) multiple brain metastases; and (4) total volume of brain metastases <1.3 cm3, with each factor assigned 1 point. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of this scoring system and its appropriateness for clinical use in an independent external patient population. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 247 patients with 388 brain metastases treated with SRS between 2010 at 2013 at Levine Cancer Institute. The Press (Emory) risk score was calculated and applied to the validation cohort population, and subsequent risk groups were analyzed using cumulative incidence. RESULTS: The low-risk (LR) group had a significantly lower risk of early DBF than did the high-risk (HR) group (22.6% vs 44%, P=.004), but there was no difference between the HR and intermediate-risk (IR) groups (41.2% vs 44%, P=.79). Total lesion volume <1.3 cm3 (P=.004), malignant melanoma (P=.007), and multiple metastases (P<.001) were validated as predictors for early DBF. Prior WBRT and breast cancer histologic features did not retain prognostic significance. Risk stratification for risk of early salvage WBRT were similar, with a trend toward an increased risk for HR compared with LR (P=.09) but no difference between IR and HR (P=.53). CONCLUSION: The 3-level Emory risk score was shown to not be externally valid, but the model was able to stratify between 2 levels (LR and not-LR [combined IR and HR]) for early (≤6 months) DBF. These results reinforce the importance of validating predictive models in independent cohorts. Further refinement of this scoring system with molecular information and in additional contemporary patient populations is warranted.

Single-Fraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) Alone Versus Surgical Resection and SRS for Large Brain Metastases: A Multi-institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) dose is limited by brain metastasis (BM) size. The study goal was to retrospectively determine whether there is a benefit for intracranial outcomes and overall survival (OS) for gross total resection with single-fraction SRS versus SRS alone for patients with large BMs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A large BM was defined as ≥4 cm3 (2 cm in diameter) prior to the study. We reviewed the records of consecutive patients treated with single-fraction SRS alone or surgery with preoperative or postoperative SRS between 2005 and 2013 from 2 institutions. RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients with 223 treated large BMs were included; 66 BMs (30%) were treated with SRS alone and 157 (70%) with surgery and SRS (63 preoperatively and 94 postoperatively). The groups (SRS vs surgery and SRS) were well balanced except regarding lesion volume (median, 5.9 cm3 vs 9.6 cm3; P<.001), median number of BMs (1.5 vs 1, P=.002), median SRS dose (18 Gy vs 15 Gy, P<.001), and prior whole-brain radiation therapy (33% vs 5%, P<.001). The local recurrence (LR) rate was significantly lower with surgery and SRS (1-year LR rate, 36.7% vs 20.5%; P=.007). There was no difference in radiation necrosis (RN) by resection status, but there was a significantly increased RN rate with postoperative SRS versus with preoperative SRS and with SRS alone (1-year RN rate, 22.6% vs 5% and 12.3%, respectively; P<.001). OS was significantly higher with surgery and SRS (2-year OS rate, 38.9% vs 19.8%; P=.01). Both multivariate adjusted analyses and propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, gross total resection with SRS was associated with significantly reduced LR compared with SRS alone for patients with large BMs. Postoperative SRS was associated with the highest rate of RN. Surgical resection with SRS may improve outcomes in patients with a limited number of large BMs compared with SRS alone. Further studies are warranted.