A narrative review of telemedicine and its adoption across specialties.

Background and Objective: Telemedicine and video consultation are crucial advancements in healthcare, allowing remote delivery of care. Telemedicine, encompassing various technologies like wearable devices, mobile health, and telemedicine, plays a significant role in managing illnesses and promoting wellness. The corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, ensuring convenient access to medical services while maintaining physical distance. Legislation has supported its integration into clinical practice and addressed compensation issues. However, ensuring clinical appropriateness and sustainability of telemedicine post-expansion has gained attention. We south to identify the most friendly and resistant specialties to telemedicine and to understand areas of interest within those specialties to grasp potential barriers to its use. Methods: We aimed to identify articles that incorporated telemedicine in any medical or surgical specialty and determine the adoption rate and intent of this new form of care. Additionally, a secondary search within these databases was conducted to analyze the advantages, disadvantages, and implementation of telemedicine in the healthcare system. Non-English articles and those without full text were excluded. The study selection and data collection process involved using search terms such as "medicine", "surgery", "specialties", "telemedicine", and "telemedicine". Key Content and Findings: Telemedicine adoption varies among specialties. The pandemic led to increased usage, with telemedicine consultations comprising 30.1% of all visits, but specialties like mental health, gastroenterology, and endocrinology showed higher rates of adoption compared to optometry, physical therapy, and orthopedic surgery. Conclusions: The data shows that telemedicine uptake varies by specialty and condition due to the need for physical exams. In-person visits still dominate new patient visits despite increased telemedicine use. Telemedicine cannot fully replace in-person care but has increased visit volume and is secure. The adoption of telemedicine is higher in medical practices than in surgical practices, with neurosurgery and urology leading. Further research is needed to assess telemedicine's suitability and effectiveness in different specialties and conditions.

The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort study: Design, baseline characteristics, and early outcomes.

To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18-99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African-Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population-based SEER data (2015-2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population-based SEER rates for indolent B-cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T-cell lymphomas, but were 10%-15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B-cell subtypes (diffuse large B-cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Artificial Intelligence Models in Health Information Exchange: A Systematic Review of Clinical Implications.

Electronic health record (EHR) systems collate patient data, and the integration and standardization of documents through Health Information Exchange (HIE) play a pivotal role in refining patient management. Although the clinical implications of AI in EHR systems have been extensively analyzed, its application in HIE as a crucial source of patient data is less explored. Addressing this gap, our systematic review delves into utilizing AI models in HIE, gauging their predictive prowess and potential limitations. Employing databases such as Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed/Medline, and Web of Science and adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, we unearthed 1021 publications. Of these, 11 were shortlisted for the final analysis. A noticeable preference for machine learning models in prognosticating clinical results, notably in oncology and cardiac failures, was evident. The metrics displayed AUC values ranging between 61% and 99.91%. Sensitivity metrics spanned from 12% to 96.50%, specificity from 76.30% to 98.80%, positive predictive values varied from 83.70% to 94.10%, and negative predictive values between 94.10% and 99.10%. Despite variations in specific metrics, AI models drawing on HIE data unfailingly showcased commendable predictive proficiency in clinical verdicts, emphasizing the transformative potential of melding AI with HIE. However, variations in sensitivity highlight underlying challenges. As healthcare's path becomes more enmeshed with AI, a well-rounded, enlightened approach is pivotal to guarantee the delivery of trustworthy and effective AI-augmented healthcare solutions.

Treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma receiving three or more lines of systemic therapy (LEO CReWE): a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Novel therapies for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma are commonly evaluated in single-arm studies without formal comparison with other treatments or historical controls. Consequently, rigorously defined treatment outcomes informing expectations for novel therapeutic strategies in this population are sparse. To inform outcome expectations, we aimed to describe treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and duration of response in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma receiving three or more lines of systemic therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study, we developed a database of patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma from eight academic centres in the USA using data collected in the LEO Cohort study (NCT02736357) and the LEO Consortium. For this analysis, eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had non-transformed grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma, and were receiving systemic therapy in the third line or later after previous therapy with an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylating agent. Clinical data and patient outcomes were abstracted from medical records by use of a standard protocol. The index therapy for the primary analysis was defined as the first line of systemic therapy after the patient had received at least two previous systemic therapies that included an alkylating agent and an anti-CD20 therapy. The main endpoints of interest were overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Outcomes were also evaluated in subsets of clinical interest (index therapy characteristics, patient and disease characteristics, treatment history, and best response assessment). FINDINGS: We screened 933 patients with follicular lymphoma, of whom 441 were included and diagnosed between March 6, 2002, and July 20, 2018. Index therapies included immunochemotherapy (n=133), anti-CD20 antibody monotherapy (n=53), lenalidomide with or without anti-CD20 (n=37), and phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors with or without anti-CD20 (n=25). 57 (13%) of 441 patients received haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation and 98 (23%) of 421 patients with complete data received therapy on clinical trials. After a median follow-up of 71 months (IQR 64-79) from index therapy, 5-year overall survival was 75% (95% CI 70-79), median progression-free survival was 17 months (15-19), and the overall response rate was 70% (65-74; 280 of 400 patients evaluable for response). Patients who were refractory to therapy with an alkylating agent had a lower overall response rate (170 [68%] of 251 patients vs 107 [77%] of 139 patients) and a significantly lower 5-year overall survival (72%, 95% CI 66-78 vs 81%, 73-89; hazard ratio 1·60, 95% CI 1·04-2·46) than patients who were not refractory to therapy with an alkylating agent. INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma receive heterogeneous treatments in the third-line setting or later. We observed high response rates to contemporary therapies that were of short duration. These data identify unmet needs among patients with follicular lymphoma, especially those who are refractory to alkylating agents, and might provide evidence by which clinical trials evaluating novel treatments could be assessed. FUNDING: Genentech and the National Cancer Institute.