TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. METHODS: Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. RESULTS: The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. CONCLUSION: The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.

Prostein expression on circulating tumor cells as a prognostic marker in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Identification of emerging molecular biomarkers on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) represents an attractive feature of liquid biopsy that facilitates precision and tailored medicine in the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Prostein is an androgen-regulated transmembrane protein with high prostate specificity. Prostein-positive circulating tumor cell (CTC) was recently suggested to have diagnostic potential; however, no study has been conducted to evaluate its prognostic value in mCRPC. METHODS: CTCs from mCRPC patients were enumerated using the CellSearch System. Prostein-positive CTCs were identified by immunostaining results. The relationships between prostein expression on CTCs and PSA response rate, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were tested by Fisher's exact test or evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox analyses. RESULTS: Prostein-positive CTCs were identified in 31 of 87 baseline samples from mCRPC patients and 16 of 51 samples collected at the first follow-up visit. PSA response rates were significantly lower in baseline prostein-positive patients (0%, 0/31) than in prostein-negative patients (19.6%, 11/56) (p = 0.007). The 31 prostein-positive patients had significantly shorter PSA-PFS (p < 0.001), radiographic PFS (p < 0.001), and OS (p = 0.018), compared to the 56 prostein-negative patients at baseline. The association with PSA-PFS maintained its significance (p = 0.028) in multivariate analyses. Analyzing prostein expression at the first follow-up as well as the conversion of prostein expression from baseline to follow-up samples not only confirmed the association with PSA-PFS, but also demonstrated prognostic significance with OS. CONCLUSION: Our study provides the first evidence to support the potential of prostein expression on CTCs to serve as a novel prognostic marker in mCRPC patients. Future large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

Integrative Medicine: An Opportunity for Improving Quality of Care in the Inpatient Setting.

As medicine shifts to a value-based focus, health care providers in inpatient settings are actively seeking approaches to providing high-quality patient care without exacerbating prevailing cost burden. Complementary and integrative medicine may offer one potential solution for this challenge. Although the benefits of utilizing integrative practices in the inpatient setting have not been explored extensively thus far, early evidence demonstrates great promise of using integrative modalities to improve symptom burden in the inpatient setting while increasing patient pain satisfaction and reducing overall costs of care. Currently, social, educational, and financial barriers exist, limiting the widespread incorporation of complementary and integrative medicine into the inpatient setting. Nonetheless, a more robust body of literature demonstrating the effectiveness of complementary and integrative medicine in reducing costs of care and improving patient outcomes may help address these limitations and lead to the acceptance of integrative practices as the standard of high-value inpatient care.

Hematologic Malignancy Episodes Exceed Target Price in Oncology Care Model.

The current study evaluated whether total cost of care (TCOC) and target price were aligned in Oncology Care Model (OCM) hematologic malignancy episodes and identified factors associated with episodes exceeding target price. Hematologic malignancy episodes from OCM performance period 1-4 reconciliation reports were identified from a large academic medical center. Of the 516 hematologic malignancies episodes included in the analysis, 283 (54.8%) exceeded the target price. Episode characteristics found to be statistically significantly associated with exceeding target price were Medicare Part B drug use and Part D drug use, novel therapy use, home health agency, and >730 days from last chemotherapy. The mean TCOC was $85 374 (± $26 342) for the episodes that exceeded target price while the mean target price was $56 106 (±$16 309). The results found a substantial misalignment between the TCOC and target price for hematologic malignancy episodes, adding to the existing evidence on the lack of adequate adjustment to the OCM target price.

Enhancing bladder cancer care through the multidisciplinary clinic approach.

INTRODUCTION: To report the impact of our 25-year multidisciplinary care delivery model experience on patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer treated at our National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson University. To our knowledge, our multidisciplinary genitourinary cancer clinic (MDC) is the longest continuously operating center of its kind at an NCI Cancer Center in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected a recent group of patients with cT2-4 N0-1 M0 bladder cancer seen in the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center Genitourinary Oncology MDC from January 2016 to September 2019. These patients were identified retrospectively. SEER-18 (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database, November 2019 submission was queried to obtain patients with similarly staged disease diagnosed between 2015 and 2017. Completion rates of radical cystectomy, use of neoadjuvant therapies, and survival outcomes were compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients from the MDC form this time period were identified; 65.9% underwent radical cystectomy and 71.8% received neoadjuvant therapy in the form of chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibition or a combination of the two - higher than reported national trends for neoadjuvant therapies. Progression of disease was seen in 24.2% of patients. A total of 8675 patients met inclusion criteria in the SEER database. Rates of radical cystectomy were significantly higher in MCD patients when compared to SEER derived data (65.9% vs. 37.7%, p =< 0.001). MCD patients had significantly better cancer-specific survival (mean 20.4 vs. 18.3 months p = 0.028, median survival not reached). CONCLUSION: Our long term experience caring for patients with genitourinary malignancies such as bladder cancer in a uniform multidisciplinary team results in a high utilization of neoadjuvant therapies. When compared to a contemporary SEER-derived cohort, multidisciplinary patients were more likely to undergo radical cystectomy and had longer cancer-specific survival.

Feasibility and Cost of Telehealth Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of telehealth head and neck cancer (HNC) survivorship care. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search for peer-reviewed feasibility studies on telehealth models for HNC survivorship care published between 2005 and 2021 was conducted using the terms "head and neck cancer" and "telehealth" and their synonyms. Inclusion criteria were studies on telehealth survivorship program interventions for HNC patients with quantitative feasibility outcome measures (eg, enrollment, retention, attrition/dropout rate, adherence/task completion rate, patient satisfaction, cost). RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies out of 1557 identified met inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Feasibility outcomes evaluated were enrollment and attrition rates, adherence/task completion rates, patient satisfaction, and user feedback surveys in different survivorship domains. Patient enrollment ranged from 20.8% to 85.7%, while attrition ranged from 7% to 47.7%. Overall, adherence was 30.2% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (46.8% vs 16.6%). Studies with cost analysis found telehealth models of care to be statistically significantly less expensive and more cost-efficient than the standard model of care, with a $642.30 saving per patient (n = 3). Telehealth models also substantially reduced work time saving per visit (on average, 7 days per visit). CONCLUSION: While telehealth survivorship programs are feasible and cost-effective and are associated with improved patient outcomes, they might not be ideal for every patient. Further investigations are needed to understand the role of telehealth in survivorship care, given the variability in study design, reporting, measures, and methodological quality.

Increasing equitable access to telehealth oncology care in the COVID-19 National Emergency: Creation of a telehealth task force.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth (TH) utilization in cancer care prior to COVID-19 was variable. Research highlights disparities in access determined by socioeconomic factors including education, income, race, and age. In response to COVID-19 and these disparities, we assessed the impact of a personalized digital support structure, the Telehealth Task Force (TTF), to reduce disparities in TH. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of cohorts between January 1, 2020 and August 30, 2020: Pre (TH use with basic telephone support), Intervention (TH access with TTF), and Post (TH access after TTF initiation and educational material dissemination). Data collected included successful TH access, health literacy (HL), and Area Deprivation Index, a ranking of neighborhoods by socioeconomic disadvantage (ADI). The data were analyzed in univariate ordinary least squares model and adjacent categories ratio model using statistical software R to understand the relationship between TTF, HL, ADI, and TH access. RESULTS: We included 555 patients from January 1, 2020 to August 30, 2020 (90 preintervention, 194 intervention, and 271 postintervention), excluding patients without ADI/HL. TTF support successfully engaged older, racially, and socioeconomically diverse patients in TH; ADI is significantly higher in the postintervention group vs. preintervention (mean difference = 7.66, 95% CI 1.00-4.32, p = 0.024) and more patients had low HL during intervention compared with preintervention (adjacent categories ratio = 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.93, p = 0.021). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 created an immediate need for TH. Implementation of the TTF helped close the digital divide, increasing TH access for vulnerable patients. Attention to digital readiness can mitigate disparities in access to care. Future research should explore the implementation of widespread routine digital support initiatives.

Acute home-based care for patients with cancer to avoid, substitute, and follow emergency department visits: a conceptual framework using Porter's Five Forces.

Background: Patients with cancer constitute a large and increasing segment of patients who receive unscheduled hospital-based care due to treatment-related symptoms and disease progression. The initial hospital-based touchpoint for these unscheduled hospitalizations is often the emergency department. Traditional models of emergency department and inpatient hospital-based care are saturated and incapable of scaling to accommodate the future, increased needs projected for this population. New models of care are necessary to address this gap. Acute home-based care is a promising tool potentially providing patient-centric, efficient care to eligible patients. Methods: We applied Porter's Five Forces framework that addresses the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers, threat of substitutes and new entrants, and industry rivalries plus the sixth force of regulation to clarify the factors that will promote or challenge the adoption of a home-based cancer care referral model before or following emergency department visits. Exploring this framework provides insights into the complexities of scaling an acute home-based cancer care model and highlights ways for health systems including hospitals, emergency departments, physician groups, and individual emergency physicians and oncologists to optimize their roles in this emerging model of care. Results: We found that current workforce shortages, as well as workflow, infrastructure, and regulatory complexities, pose major challenges that unless carefully addressed may restrict the growth of acute home-based cancer care. Additional uncertainties persist around appropriate payment models and the competitive landscape. Key promoting factors include the recognized need in the cancer community and among payers for new models to decrease unscheduled hospitalizations and emergency department visits as well as the uptake of home-based and technology-enabled solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. A better understanding of these forces helps to clarify the risks and opportunities as new entrants build their programs. Conclusions: Acute home-based cancer care is a promising tool to complement traditional outpatient clinics, emergency departments, and inpatient hospital-based models of cancer care. New technologies and policies increasingly enable a broader scope of cancer care in the home setting.

Technology-enhanced AcceleRation of Germline Evaluation for Therapy (TARGET): A randomized controlled trial of a pretest patient-driven webtool vs. genetic counseling for prostate cancer germline testing.

BACKGROUND: Germline testing has an increasingly important role in prostate cancer care. However, a relative shortage of genetic counselors necessitates alternate strategies for delivery of pre-test education for germline testing. This study, funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, seeks to address the need for novel methods of delivery of pre-test germline education beyond traditional germline counseling to facilitate informed patient decision-making for germline testing. METHODS: This is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a target enrollment of 173 participants with prostate cancer per study arm (total anticipated n = 346). Patients who meet criteria for germline testing based on tumor features, family history or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are being recruited from 5 US sites including academic, private practice and Veterans healthcare settings. Consenting participants are randomized to the interactive pretest webtool or germline counseling with assessment of key patient-reported outcomes involved in informed decision-making for germline testing. RESULTS: Participants complete surveys at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and following disclosure of germline results. The primary outcome of the study is decisional conflict for germline testing. Secondary outcomes include genetic knowledge, satisfaction, uptake of germline testing, and understanding of results. CONCLUSION: Our hypothesis is that the web-based genetic education tool is non-inferior to traditional genetic counseling regarding key patient-reported outcomes involved in informed decision-making for germline testing. If proven, the results would support deploying the webtool across various practice settings to facilitate pre-test genetic education for individuals with prostate cancer and developing collaborative care strategies with genetic counseling. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04447703.

Cannabis Use in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Review.

Cannabis use and interest continues to increase among patients with cancer and caregivers. High-quality research remains scant in many areas, causing hesitancy or discomfort among most clinical providers. Although we have limitations on hard outcomes, we can provide some guidance and more proactively engage in conversations with patients and family about cannabis. Several studies support the efficacy of cannabis for various cancer and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and cancer pain. Although formulations and dosing guidelines for clinicians do not formally exist at present, attention to tetrahydrocannabinol concentration and understanding of risks with inhalation can reduce risk. Conflicting information exists on the interaction between cannabis and immunotherapy as well as estrogen receptor interactions. Motivational interviewing can help engage in more productive, less stigmatized conversations.

A Pilot Feasibility Study of Digital Health Coaching for Men With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. The majority of prostate cancer treatment occurs in the ambulatory setting, and patients and their caregivers take on significant responsibility for monitoring and managing treatment and disease-related toxicity. Digital health coaching has shown promise as a tool to positively influence outcomes. We completed a single-arm pilot study to assess the feasibility of digital health coaching in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with a history of prostate cancer requiring treatment in the past 2 years were eligible for inclusion. Participants engaged in a 12-week health coaching program, consisting of a combination of at least one telephone call and up to four digital nudges (defined as content delivered via text, e-mail, or app on the basis of the participant's preference) per week. Prostate cancer-specific content addressed one of the following topics each week: fatigue, pain management, healthy eating, exercise, managing incontinence, sexual health, managing stress and anxiety, financial toxicity, goal setting during treatment, managing side effects, communicating with the health care team, and medication adherence. Services were provided at no cost to the participant. RESULTS: A hundred patients were consented for the study, and 88 enrolled. The feasibility threshold of 60% was met with 63 of the 88 enrolled individuals completing the 3-month program (proportion = 71.6%; 90% CI, 62.6 to 79.4; P = .016). CONCLUSION: Digital health coaching for men with prostate cancer is feasible. These findings support further evaluation of digital health coaching for men with prostate cancer in larger randomized controlled trials.

COVID-19 Pandemic Influence on Medical Oncology Provider Perceptions of Telehealth Video Visits.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid expansion of telehealth use in oncology, a specialty in which prior utilization was low in part because of barriers perceived by providers. Understanding the changing perceptions of medical oncology providers during the pandemic is critical for continued expansion and improvement of telehealth in cancer care. This study was designed to identify medical oncology providers' perceptions of telehealth video visits as influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncology providers from November 20, 2020, to January 27, 2021, at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in an urban, academic health system in Philadelphia, PA. We assessed provider perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) provider-level comfort and willingness for telehealth, (2) provider-perceived patient comfort and willingness to engage in telehealth, and (3) continued barriers to successful telehealth use. RESULTS: Volunteer and convenience sampling resulted in the participation of 25 medical oncology providers, including 18 physicians and seven advanced practice providers, in semi-structured interviews. Of the 25 participants, 13 (52%) were female and 19 (76%) were White, with an average age of 48.5 years (standard deviation = 12.6). Respondents largely stated an increased comfort level and willingness for use of video visits. In addition, respondents perceived a positive change in patient comfort and willingness, mostly driven by convenience, accessibility, and reduced risk of COVID-19 exposure. However, several reported technologic issues and limited physical examination capability as remaining barriers to telehealth adoption. CONCLUSION: The rapid adoption of telehealth necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic has increased provider-level and provider-perceived patient comfort and willingness to engage in video visits for cancer care. As both providers and patients increasingly accept telehealth across many use cases, future work should focus on further addressing technology and physical examination barriers and ensuring continued reimbursement for telehealth as a routine part of covered care.

Development of the Oncology Opportunity Cost Assessment Tool: Item Generation and Content Validity Testing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop the Oncology Opportunity Cost Assessment Tool (OOCAT), a survey instrument to evaluate the opportunity costs patients experience when seeking medical oncology care. METHODS: Development of the OOCAT involved extensive patient engagement through both focus groups and interviews. First, the study team developed a list of opportunity cost concepts, which included patients' logistical and financial considerations related to seeking care. We conducted focus groups with patients to expand upon this list of concepts, and then developed a set of questions that incorporated all the concepts generated during the focus groups. To refine these questions, we next performed cognitive interviews with another set of patients to ensure content validity and clarity of instrument items, refining the OOCAT iteratively on the basis of feedback. RESULTS: We engaged 23 participants (17 patients and six caregivers) across four focus groups and 17 participants in cognitive interviews. Focus group participants generated 112 concepts, which resulted in an initial OOCAT with 16 questions. Cognitive interviews resulted in modification of 12 questions and addition of two questions (related to coordination of transportation and impact on home responsibilities). The final OOCAT consisted of 18 items examining time requirements for appointments, financial implications of traveling to appointments for the patient and the caregiver, and logistical and quality-of-life challenges associated with traveling for appointments. CONCLUSION: We developed the OOCAT, an instrument designed to evaluate patient-level opportunity costs of seeking medical oncology care. Further studies to validate the OOCAT are underway.

Preclinical evidence for pioglitazone and bexarotene combination in oral cancer chemoprevention.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) requires new treatments and targeted approaches to improve survival. The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) and retinoic X receptor alpha (RXRα) nuclear receptor pathways may be targetable with repurposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents for prevention and treatment. METHODS: Oral cancer and leukoplakia cell lines were treated with the PPARγ agonist (pioglitazone) and RXRα activator (bexarotene). PPARγ activation, cellular proliferation, apoptosis activity and phenotype, including the pharmacodynamic marker, involucrin (IVL), were subsequently analyzed using a reporter gene assay, genomic data, MTT assay and western blot. RESULTS: Microarray analysis of HNSCC tumor versus normal tissue shows IVL expression is significantly increased in normal tissue compared to HNSCC tumors (p < 0.0001). In MSK Leuk1 and CA 9-22 cell lines, pioglitazone increases PPARγ DNA binding activity and IVL promoter activity in a dose dependent manner (p < 0.01 and p < 0.0001). Combination treatment with pioglitazone and bexarotene increases PPARγ DNA binding activity and IVL promoter activity (p < 0.01 and p < 0.0001). MTT analysis shows decreases in cell proliferation when cells are treated with pioglitazone and bexarotene. Decreases in cell proliferation are significant to at least p < 0.05 for all combination versus single agent treatments. Western blot on whole-cell lysate from cells treated with pioglitazone and bexarotene alone or in combination for IVL showed increased protein levels with combination treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting the PPARγ/RXRα heterodimer with pioglitazone and bexarotene was effective in this preclinical project. This was functional in both preneoplastic and oral cancer cell lines. A better understanding of the molecular mechanism on downstream effects on cellular proliferation could potentially have implications clinically, both in oral preneoplasia and possibly head and neck cancer; however, more research needs to be done to explore the potential these medications have in chemoprevention.

Breast Cancer Stage Is Associated With Exceeding Target Price in the Oncology Care Model.

PURPOSE: To explore mean difference between Oncology Care Model (OCM) total costs and target price among breast cancer episodes by stage under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services OCM payment methodology. METHODS: Breast cancer episodes from OCM performance period 1-4 reconciliation reports (July 1, 2016-July 1, 2018) were linked with health record data from a large, academic medical center. Demographics, total cost of care (TCOC), and target price were measured by stage. Adjusted differences between TCOC and target price were compared across cancer stage using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 539 episodes were evaluated from 252 unique patients with breast cancer, of which 235 (44%) were stage I, 124 (23%) stage II, 33 (6%) stage III, and 147 (27%) stage IV. About 37% of episodes exceeded target price. Mean differences from target price were -$1,782, $2,246, -$6,032, and $11,379 all in US dollars (USD) for stages I through IV, respectively. Stage IV episodes had highest mean TCOC ($44,210 USD) and mean target price ($32,831 USD) but also had higher rates of chemotherapy, inpatient admission, and novel therapy use. After adjusting for covariates, stage IV and ≥ 65-year-old patients had the highest mean difference from target price ($17,175 USD; 95% CI, $12,452 to $21,898 USD). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer episodes in older women with distant metastases most frequently exceeded target price, suggesting that target price did not adequately account for complexity of metastatic cancers. A metastatic adjustment introduced in PP7 represents a promising advancement in the target price methodology and an impact evaluation will be needed.

Pretest Genetic Education Video Versus Genetic Counseling for Men Considering Prostate Cancer Germline Testing: A Patient-Choice Study to Address Urgent Practice Needs.

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is now central to treatment and hereditary cancer assessment. With rising demand for and shortage of genetic counseling (GC), tools to deliver pretest informed consent across practice settings are needed to improve access to GT and precision care. Here, we report on Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER), a patient-choice study for pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) versus GC to inform urgent practice needs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with PCA or at risk for PCA (family history of PCA) were eligible and could choose pretest VBGE or GC. Outcomes included decisional conflict for GT, change in genetics knowledge, satisfaction, and intention to share results with family and/or providers. Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Mean change in genetics knowledge was compared with t tests. The significance level was set a priori at .05. RESULTS: Data on the first 127 participants were analyzed. Characteristics were White (85.8%), bachelor's degree (66.9%), and PCA diagnosis (90.6%). The majority chose VBGE (71%) versus GC (29%; P < .001). No differences were observed in decisional conflict for GT or satisfaction. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups without significant difference (+0.9 VBGE, +1.8 GC, P = .056). Men who chose VBGE had higher intention to share GT results (96.4% VBGE v 86.4% GC, P = .02). Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (VBGE 94.4%, GC 92%). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of men opted for pretest VBGE, with comparable patient-reported outcomes and uptake of GT. The results support the use of pretest video to address the critical GC shortage in the precision era.

Medical Oncology Patient Perceptions of Telehealth Video Visits.

PURPOSE: Telehealth in medical oncology has expanded secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, quantitative research on medical oncology telehealth use shows conflicting results on patient satisfaction, whereas qualitative data are sparse. Our qualitative study aimed to identify the factors influencing patient acceptability of video visits for medical oncology care before and at the onset of the expansion of telehealth because of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2019 and April 2020 with 20 patients who participated in a telehealth visit with a medical oncology provider at Thomas Jefferson University. RESULTS: Of the 20 participants, 13 (65%) were female and 15 (75%) were White, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 60.5 years (11.8). Patients identified convenience, anxiety, COVID-19, and provider preference as positively influencing the acceptability of video visits; however, some patients noted limitations in provider connection, physical examinations, and visit length as disadvantages. Regarding receipt of serious or bad news, some preferred video visits for privacy, immediacy of results, news processing, and family comfort. Others preferred in-person encounters for provider support and the ability to receive written information and in-person referrals. CONCLUSION: Patient-perceived factors influencing general acceptability, appropriateness of serious and bad news delivery, and future uses of telehealth were unique to each individual, but shared common themes. Understanding each patient's perspective of telehealth acceptability and tailoring use to their preferences is critical for continued utilization. Further research is needed to understand and address reasons for lack of telehealth uptake among certain patients.