Implementation Strategies to Promote Short-Course Radiation for Bone Metastases.

Importance: For patients with nonspine bone metastases, short-course radiotherapy (RT) can reduce patient burden without sacrificing clinical benefit. However, there is great variation in uptake of short-course RT across practice settings. Objective: To evaluate whether a set of 3 implementation strategies facilitates increased adoption of a consensus recommendation to treat nonspine bone metastases with short-course RT (ie, ≤5 fractions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized quality improvement study was conducted at 3 community-based cancer centers within an existing academic-community partnership. Rollout was initiated in 3-month increments between October 2021 and May 2022. Participants included treating physicians and patients receiving RT for nonspine bone metastases. Data analysis was performed from October 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Three implementation strategies-(1) dissemination of published consensus guidelines, (2) personalized audit-and-feedback reports, and (3) an email-based electronic consultation platform (eConsult)-were rolled out to physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the consensus recommendation of short-course RT for nonspine bone metastases. Mixed-effects logistic regression at the bone metastasis level was used to model associations between the exposure of physicians to the set of strategies (preimplementation vs postimplementation) and short-course RT, while accounting for patient and physician characteristics and calendar time, with a random effect for physician. Physician surveys were administered before implementation and after implementation to assess feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy. Results: Forty-five physicians treated 714 patients (median [IQR] age at treatment start, 67 [59-75] years; 343 women [48%]) with 838 unique nonspine bone metastases during the study period. Implementing the set of strategies was not associated with use of short-course RT (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.34; P = .40), with unadjusted adherence rates of 53% (444 lesions) preimplementation vs 56% (469 lesions) postimplementation; however, the adjusted odds of adherence increased with calendar time (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.36; P = .003). All 3 implementation strategies were perceived as being feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; only the perception of audit-and-feedback appropriateness changed before vs after implementation (19 of 29 physicians [66%] vs 27 of 30 physicians [90%]; P = .03, Fisher exact test), with 20 physicians (67%) preferring reports quarterly. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, a multicomponent set of implementation strategies was not associated with increased use of short-course RT within an academic-community partnership. However, practice improved with time, perhaps owing to secular trends or physician awareness of the study. Audit-and-feedback was more appropriate than anticipated. Findings support the need to investigate optimal approaches for promoting evidence-based radiation practice across settings.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Ontario and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Comparative studies evaluating quality of care in different healthcare systems can guide reform initiatives. This study seeks to characterize best practices by comparing utilization and outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) in the USA and Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients (age ≥ 66 years) with PC were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and SEER-Medicare databases from 2006 to 2015. Demographics and treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or multimodality (surgery and chemotherapy)) were described. In resected patients, neoadjuvant therapy, readmission, and 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality rates were calculated. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: This study includes 38,858 and 11,512 patients with PC from the USA and Ontario, respectively. More female patients were identified in the USA (54.0%) versus Ontario (46.9%). In the entire cohort, US patients received more radiation in addition to other therapies (18.8% vs. 13.5% Ontario) and chemotherapy alone (34.3% vs. 19.0% Ontario). While rates of resection were similar (13.4% USA vs.12.5% Ontario), multimodality therapy was more common in the UAS (9.0% vs. 6.4%). Among resected patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was uncommon in both groups, although more frequent in the USA (12.0% vs. 3.2% Ontario). The 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality rates were lower in Ontario vs. the USA (30-day: 3.26% vs. 4.91%; 90-day: 7.08% vs. 10.96%), however, overall survival was similar between the USA and Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: We observed substantive differences in treatment and outcomes between PC patients in the USA and Ontario, which may reflect known differences in healthcare systems. Close evaluation of healthcare policies can inform initiatives to improve care quality.

Persistence of Telemedicine Usage for Breast and Prostate Cancer after the Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

While COVID-19 catalyzed a shift to telemedicine, little is known about the persistence of remote cancer care in non-emergent times. We assessed telemedicine use at a high-volume academic cancer center in New York City and analyzed breast and prostate cancer visits pre-COVID-19, peak COVID-19, and post-peak. Descriptive statistics assessed visit mode (in person, telemedicine) and type (new, follow-up, other) by department/specialty, with Fisher's exact tests comparing peak/post-peak differences. The study included 602,233 visits, with telemedicine comprising 2% of visits pre-COVID-19, 50% peak COVID-19, and 30% post-peak. Notable variations emerged by department/specialty and visit type. Post-peak, most departments/specialties continued using telemedicine near or above peak levels, except medicine, neurology, and survivorship, where remote care fell. In psychiatry, social work, and nutrition, nearly all visits were conducted remotely during and after peak COVID-19, while surgery and nursing maintained low telemedicine usage. Post-peak, anesthesiology and neurology used telemedicine seldom for new visits but often for follow-ups, while nursing showed the opposite pattern. These trends suggest department- and visit-specific contexts where providers and patients choose telemedicine in non-emergent conditions. More research is needed to explore these findings and evaluate telemedicine's appropriateness and impact across the care continuum.

Electronic consent in clinical care: an international scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Digital technologies create opportunities for improvement of consenting processes in clinical care. Yet little is known about the prevalence, characteristics or outcomes of shifting from paper to electronic consenting, or e-consent, in clinical settings. Thus questions remain around e-consent's impact on efficiency, data integrity, user experience, care access, equity and quality. Our objective was to scope all known findings on this critical topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through an international, systematic scoping review, we identified and assessed all published findings on clinical e-consent in the scholarly and grey literatures, including consents for telehealth encounters, procedures and health information exchanges. From each relevant publication, we abstracted data on study design, measures, findings and other study features. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Metrics describing or evaluating clinical e-consent, including preferences for paper versus e-consenting; efficiency (eg, time, workload) and effectiveness (eg, data integrity, care quality). User characteristics were captured where available. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles published since 2005, most from North America or Europe, report on the deployment of e-consent in surgery, oncology and other clinical settings. Experimental designs and other study characteristics vary, but nearly all focus on procedural e-consents. Synthesis reveals relatively consistent findings around improved efficiency and data integrity with, and user preferences for, e-consent. Care access and quality issues are less frequently explored, with disparate findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The literature is nascent and largely focused on issues that are immediate and straightforward to measure. As virtual care pathways expand, more research is urgently needed to ensure that care quality and access are advanced, not compromised, by e-consent.

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical value of second opinions in oncology are limited. We examined diagnostic and treatment changes resulting from second opinions and the expected impact on morbidity and prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients presenting in 2018 to a high-volume cancer center for second opinions about newly diagnosed colorectal, head and neck, lung, and myeloma cancers or abnormal results. Two sub-specialty physicians from each cancer type reviewed 30 medical records (120 total) using a process and detailed data collection guide meant to mitigate institutional bias. The primary outcome measure was the rate of treatment changes that were "clinically meaningful", i.e., expected to impact morbidity and/or prognosis. Among those with treatment changes, another outcome measure was the rate of clinically meaningful diagnostic changes that led to treatment change. RESULTS: Of 120 cases, forty-two had clinically meaningful changes in treatment with positive expected outcomes (7 colorectal, 17 head and neck, 11 lung, 7 myeloma; 23-57%). Two patients had negative expected outcomes from having sought a second opinion, with worse short-term morbidity and unchanged long-term morbidity and prognosis. All those with positive expected outcomes had improved expected morbidity (short- and/or long-term); 11 (0-23%) also had improved expected prognosis. Nine involved a shift from treatment to observation; 21 involved eliminating or reducing the extent of surgery, compared to 6 adding surgery or increasing its extent. Of the 42 with treatment changes, 13 were due to clinically meaningful diagnostic changes (1 colorectal, 5 head and neck, 3 lung, 4 myeloma; 3%-17%) . CONCLUSIONS: Second-opinion consultations sometimes add clinical value by improving expected prognoses; more often, they offer treatment de-escalations, with corresponding reductions in expected short- and/or long-term morbidity. Future research could identify subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Electronic Consent at US Cancer Centers: A Survey of Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: Digital technologies create opportunities for improving consenting processes in cancer care and research. Yet, little is known about the prevalence of electronic consenting, or e-consent, at US cancer care institutions. METHODS: We surveyed institutions in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network about their capabilities for clinical, research, and administrative e-consents; technologies used; telemedicine consents; multilingual support; evaluations; and opportunities and challenges in moving from paper-based to electronic processes. Responses were summarized across responding institutions. RESULTS: Twenty-five institutions completed the survey (81% response rate). Respondents were from all census regions and included freestanding and matrix cancer centers. Twenty (80%) had e-consent capabilities, with variability in the extent of adoption: One (5%) had implemented e-consent for all clinical, research, and administrative needs while 19 (95%) had a mix of paper and electronic consenting. Among those with e-consent capabilities, the majority (14 of 20, 70%) were using features embedded in their electronic health record. Most had a combination of paper and e-consenting for clinical purposes (18, 72%). About two-thirds relied entirely on paper for research consents (16, 64%) but had at least some electronic processes for administrative consents (15, 60%). Obstacles to e-consenting included challenges with procuring or maintaining hardware, content management, workflow integration, and digital literacy of patients. Successes included positive user experiences, workflow improvements, and better record-keeping. Only two of 20 (10%) respondents with e-consent capabilities had evaluated the impact of automating consent processes. CONCLUSION: E-consent was prevalent in our sample, with 80% of institutions reporting at least some capabilities. Further progress is needed for the benefits of e-consenting to be realized broadly.

Digitalizing the Clinical Research Informed Consent Process: Assessing the Participant Experience in Comparison With Traditional Paper-Based Methods.

PURPOSE: Consent processes are critical for clinical care and research and may benefit from incorporating digital strategies. We compared an electronic informed consent (eIC) option to paper consent across four outcomes: (1) technology burden, (2) protocol comprehension, (3) participant agency (ability to self-advocate), and (4) completion of required document fields. METHODS: We assessed participant experience with eIC processes compared with traditional paper-based consenting using surveys and compared completeness of required fields, over 3 years (2019-2021). Participants who consented to a clinical trial at a large academic cancer center via paper or eIC were invited to either pre-COVID-19 pandemic survey 1 (technology burden) or intrapandemic survey 2 (comprehension and agency). Consent document completeness was assessed via electronic health records. RESULTS: On survey 1, 83% of participants (n = 777) indicated eIC was easy or very easy to use; discomfort with technology overall was not correlated with discomfort using eIC. For survey 2, eIC (n = 262) and paper consenters (n = 193) had similar comprehension scores. All participants responded favorably to at least five of six agency statements; however, eIC generated a higher proportion of positive free-text comments (P < .05), with themes such as thoroughness of the discussion and consenter professionalism. eIC use yielded no completeness errors across 235 consents versus 6.4% for paper (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that eIC when compared with paper (1) did not increase technology burden, (2) supported comparable comprehension, (3) upheld key elements of participant agency, and (4) increased completion of mandatory consent fields. The results support a broader call for organizations to offer eIC for clinical research discussions to enhance the overall participant experience and increase the completeness of the consent process.

Real-world use of bone modifying agents in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone modifying agents (BMAs) prevent skeletal related events among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involving bone and prevent osteoporotic fractures among patients at high risk. BMA utilization for patients with mCRPC has not been well quantified. METHODS: We used linked SEER registry and Medicare claims data. We included men diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma during 2007-2015, aged > = 66 at diagnosis, with sufficient continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D, who received androgen deprivation therapy. We limited to those who subsequently received a CRPC-defining treatment (CDT). We identified patients with evidence of bone metastasis using claims. Our primary outcome was receipt of a BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of initiating CDT. RESULTS: Among 1292 included patients, 1034 (80%) had bone metastasis. BMA use within 180 days of initiating CDT was higher among patients with bone metastases than those without (705/1034 [68%] vs 56/258 [22%]). Among patients without bone metastasis, those with high osteoporotic fracture risk were more likely than those without to receive a BMA (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.17, 5.29); however, only 26% of patients with high fracture risk received a BMA. Among patients who received BMAs, most (62%) first initiated them >90 days before initiating CDT. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients with mCRPC and bone metastases received BMAs within 180 days after initiating CDT. A greater proportion of patients without bone metastasis may warrant BMA therapy for osteoporotic fracture prevention. Some patients with bone metastasis may be able to delay BMA initiation until CRPC.

Clinical Trial Participation Among Older Adult Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Cancer.

Importance: Clinical trials play a critical role in the development of novel cancer therapies, and precise estimates of the frequency with which older adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials are lacking. Objective: To estimate the proportion of older adult Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries with cancer who participate in interventional cancer clinical trials, using a novel population-based methodology. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study evaluating clinical trial participation among older adult patients with cancer from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2020, claims data from Medicare FFS were linked with the ClinicalTrials.gov to determine trial participation through the unique National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier. The proportion of patients with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional clinical trial and receiving active cancer treatment from January 2014 to June 2020 was estimated. Data analysis was performed from November 18, 2020, to November 1, 2021. Exposures: Patients with cancer aged 65 years or older with Medicare FFS insurance, with and without active cancer treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment in clinical trials among all patients with cancer 65 years and older and among patients receiving active cancer treatments as defined by the presence of at least 1 NCT identifier corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial in Medicare claims. Results: Among 1 150 978 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [8.4] years; 49.9% men and 50.1% women) with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015, 12 028 (1.0%) patients had a billing claim with an NCT identifier indicating enrollment in an interventional cancer clinical trial between January 2014 and June 2020. In a subset of 429 343 patients with active cancer treatment, 8360 (1.9%) were enrolled in 1 or more interventional trials. Patients enrolled in a trial tended to be younger, male, a race other than Black, and residing in zip codes with high median incomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study show that clinical trial enrollment among older adult patients with cancer remains low, with only 1.0% to 1.9% of patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional cancer clinical trial as measured by the presence of NCT identifiers in Medicare claims. These data provide a contemporary estimate of trial enrollment, persistent disparities in trial participation, and only limited progress in trial access over the past 2 decades.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Non-Spine Bone Metastases: Results of a Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

Purpose: Local treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership. Methods and Materials: A multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating "agree" or "strongly agree" with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement. Results: Seventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3). Conclusions: Consensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation.

Validation of a Population-Based Data Source to Examine National Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires health care organizations to report the National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier on claims for items and services related to clinical trials that qualify for coverage. This same NCT identifier is used to identify clinical trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. If linked, this information could facilitate population-based analyses of clinical trial participation and outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the validity of a linkage between fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims and ClinicalTrials.gov through the NCT identifier for patients with cancer enrolled in clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 2 complementary retrospective analyses for a validation assessment. First, billing data from 3 health care institutions were used to estimate the missingness of the NCT identifier in claims by calculating the proportion of known participants in cancer clinical trials with no NCT identifier on any submitted Medicare claims. Second, the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data set, which includes a subset of all FFS Medicare beneficiaries for whom health insurance claims are linked with cancer registry data, was used to identify adult patients diagnosed with cancer between 2006 and 2015 with an NCT identifier in claims corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial. To estimate the accuracy of the NCT identifier when present, the proportion of NCT identifiers that corresponded to trials that were aligned with the patients' known primary or secondary diagnoses was calculated. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: An NCT identifier present in Medicare claims. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was participating in a clinical trial relevant to patient's cancer diagnosis. Results: A total of 1 171 816 patients were included in analyses. Across the 3 participating institutions, there were 5061 Medicare patients enrolled in a clinical trial, including 3797 patients (75.0%) with an NCT identifier on at least 1 billing claim that matched the clinical trial on which the patient was participating. Among 1 171 816 SEER-Medicare patients, 29 138 patients (2.5%) had at least 1 claim with a value entered in the NCT identifier field corresponding to 32 950 unique patient-NCT identifier pairs. There were 26 694 pairs (81.0%) with an NCT identifier corresponding to a clinical trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 10 170 pairs (38.1%) were interventional cancer clinical trials. Among these, 9805 pairs (96.4%) were considered appropriate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, this data linkage provided a novel data source to study clinical trial enrollment patterns among Medicare patients with cancer on a population level. The presence of the NCT identifiers in claims for Medicare patients participating in clinical trials is likely to improve over time with increasing adherence with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandate.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. METHODS: Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. RESULTS: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Real-World Use of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy is recommended for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but not metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). BMA treatment in mCSPC may therefore constitute overuse. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we included patients diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2015 who were 66 years of age or older at diagnosis and had received androgen-deprivation or antiandrogen therapy. We excluded patients who had previously received BMAs or had existing osteoporosis, osteopenia, hypercalcemia, or prior bone fracture. The primary outcome was receipt of BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of diagnosis (emergence of CRPC within this time frame is unlikely). The secondary outcome was receipt of a BMA within 90 days. Exposures of interest included practice location (physician office vs hospital outpatient) and the specialty (medical oncologist vs urologist) of the treating physician. RESULTS: Our sample included 2627 patients, of whom 52.9% were treated by medical oncologists and 47.1% by urologists; 77.7% and 22.3% received care in physician office and hospital outpatient locations, respectively. Overall, 23.6% received a BMA within 180 days; 18.4% did within 90 days. BMA therapy was more common among patients treated by oncologists (odds ratio = 8.23, 95% confidence interval = 6.41 to 10.57) and in physician office locations (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.69). Utilization has increased: 17.3% of patients received BMAs from 2007 to 2009 (17.3% zoledronic acid, 0% denosumab) and 28.1% from 2012 to 2015 (8.4% zoledronic acid, 20.3% denosumab). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mCSPC who had no evidence of high osteoporotic fracture risk, more than one-quarter have received BMAs in recent years. This overuse may lead to excess costs and toxicity.

Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Patients With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify risk factors associated with medical errors and iatrogenic injuries during an initial course of cancer-directed treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 400 patients 18 years or older undergoing an initial course of treatment for breast, colorectal, or lung cancer at a comprehensive cancer center, we abstracted patient, disease, and treatment-related variables from the electronic medical record. We examined adverse events (AEs) and preventable AEs by risk factor using the χ2 or Fisher exact tests. We estimated the association between risk factors and the relative risk of an additional AE or preventable AE in multivariable negative binomial regression models with backwards selection (P < 0.1). RESULTS: There were 304 AEs affecting 136 patients (34%) and 97 preventable AEs affecting 53 patients (13%). In multivariable analyses, AEs were overrepresented in those with lung cancer compared with patients with breast cancer (incident rate ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-3.2). Nonwhite race (1.6, 1.0-2.6), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (2.0, 0.9-4.1), advanced disease (1.7, 1.1-2.6), use of each additional class of high-risk nonchemotherapy medication (1.6, 1.3-1.9), and chemotherapy (2.1, 1.3-3.3) were all associated with risk of an additional AE. Preventable AEs were associated with lung cancer (7.4, 2.4-23.2), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (5.5, 1.7-17.9), and high-risk nonchemotherapy medications (1.5, 1.2-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for AEs among patients with cancer reflected patients' underlying disease, cancer-directed therapy, and high-risk noncancer medications. The association of AEs with ethnicity merits further research. Risk factor models could be used prospectively to identify patients with cancer at increased risk of harm.

Trends in chronic opioid therapy among survivors of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) have increased risk of opioid misuse. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results-Medicare data, we matched adults ≥66 years diagnosed with HNC 2008-2015 with cancer-free controls. We computed odds ratios (OR) for receipt of chronic opioid therapy (COT, claims for ≥90 consecutive days) for HNC survivors compared to controls each year after matching through 2016. RESULTS: The cohort of HNC survivors declined from 5107 in the first year after diagnosis to 604 in the sixth year after diagnosis. For 5 years, rates of COT among HNC survivors exceeded that of controls. Differences between survivors and controls declined each year (ORs: year 1, 4.36; year 2, 2.60; year 3, 2.18; year 4, 1.85; and year 5, 1.35; all P-values <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among older HNC survivors, cancer-associated opioid use in the first years after diagnosis suggests that the benefit of opioids must balance the risk of opioid misuse.

Why Not? Persuading Clinicians to Reduce Overuse.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how best to deimplement nonrecommended medical services, which can result in excess costs and patient harm. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 15 providers at 3 health systems from June 19 to November 21, 2017. Using the case of nonrecommended imaging in patients with cancer, participants assessed the potential for 7 rationales or "arguments," each characterizing overuse in terms of a single problem type (cost or quality) and affected stakeholder group (clinicians, institutions, society, or patients), to convince colleagues to change their practices. We tested rationales for all problem-stakeholder combinations appearing in prior deimplementation studies. RESULTS: Participants' views varied widely. Relatively few found cost arguments powerful, except for patients' out-of-pocket costs. Participants were divided on institution-quality and clinician-quality rationales. Patient-quality rationales resonated strongly with nearly all participants. However, a "yes, but" phenomenon emerged: after initially expressing strong support for a rationale, participants often undercut it with denials or rationalizations. CONCLUSION: Deimplementation efforts should combine multiple rationales appealing to clinicians' diverse perspectives and priorities. In addition, efforts must consider the complex cognitive dynamics that can undercut data and reasoned argumentation.

Association between cancer-specific adverse event triggers and mortality: A validation study.

BACKGROUND: As there are few validated measures of patient safety in clinical oncology, creating an efficient measurement instrument would create significant value. Accordingly, we sought to assess the validity of a novel patient safety measure by examining the association of oncology-specific triggers and mortality using administrative claims data. METHODS: We examined a retrospective cohort of 322 887 adult cancer patients enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage products for one year after an initial diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer in 2008-2014. We used diagnosis and procedure codes to calculate the prevalence of 16 cancer-specific "triggers"-events that signify a potential adverse event. We compared one-year mortality rates among patients with and without triggers by cancer type and metastatic status using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Trigger events affected 19% of patients and were most common among patients with metastatic colorectal (41%) and lung (50%) cancers. There was increased one-year mortality among patients with triggers compared to patients without triggers across all cancer types in unadjusted and multivariate analyses. The increased mortality rate among patients with trigger events was particularly striking for nonmetastatic prostate cancer (1.3% vs 7.5%, adjusted odds ratio 1.96 [95% CI 1.49-2.57]) and nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (4.1% vs 11.7%, 1.44 [1.19-1.75]). CONCLUSIONS: The association between adverse event triggers and poor survival among a cohort of cancer patients supports the validity of a cancer-specific, administrative claims-based trigger tool.

Assessment of variation in 30-day mortality following cancer surgeries among older adults across US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: While public reporting of surgical outcomes for noncancer conditions is common, cancer surgeries have generally been excluded. This is true despite numerous studies showing outcomes to differ between hospitals based on their characteristics. Our objective was to assess whether three prerequisites for quality assessment and reporting are present for 30-day mortality after cancer surgery: low burden for timely reporting, hospital variation, and potential for public health gains. STUDY DESIGN: We used Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare claims to examine the extent of variation in 30-day cancer surgical mortality between 3860 US hospitals. We included 340 489 surgeries for 12 cancer types for FFS Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years, 2011-2013. Hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics and with a random hospital effect were fit to obtain hospital-specific risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 99% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated a hospital odds ratio to describe the difference in mortality risk for a hospital above vs below average quality and estimated the potential mortality reduction. RESULTS: The median number of cancer surgeries per hospital was 34. The median RSMR overall was 2.41% (99% CI 2.28%, 2.66%). In aggregate and for most cancers, variation between hospitals exceeded that due to differences in patient and hospital characteristics. For individual cancers, relative differences exceeded 20% in mortality risk between patients undergoing surgery at a hospital below vs above average quality, with the potential for an estimated 500 deaths prevented annually given hypothetical improvements. CONCLUSION: Quality measurement and reporting of 30-day mortality for cancer surgery is worthy of consideration.

Developing a cancer-specific trigger tool to identify treatment-related adverse events using administrative data.

BACKGROUND: As there are few validated tools to identify treatment-related adverse events across cancer care settings, we sought to develop oncology-specific "triggers" to flag potential adverse events among cancer patients using claims data. METHODS: 322 887 adult patients undergoing an initial course of cancer-directed therapy for breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer from 2008 to 2014 were drawn from a large commercial claims database. We defined 16 oncology-specific triggers using diagnosis and procedure codes. To distinguish treatment-related complications from comorbidities, we required a logical and temporal relationship between a treatment and the associated trigger. We tabulated the prevalence of triggers by cancer type and metastatic status during 1-year of follow-up, and examined cancer trigger risk factors. RESULTS: Cancer-specific trigger events affected 19% of patients over the initial treatment year. The trigger burden varied by disease and metastatic status, from 6% of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer to 41% and 50% of those with metastatic colorectal and lung cancers, respectively. The most prevalent triggers were abnormal serum bicarbonate, blood transfusion, non-contrast chest CT scan following radiation therapy, and hypoxemia. Among patients with metastatic disease, 10% had one trigger event and 29% had two or more. Triggers were more common among older patients, women, non-whites, patients with low family incomes, and those without a college education. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology-specific triggers offer a promising method for identifying potential patient safety events among patients across cancer care settings.