Oncology hospitalist impact on hospice utilization.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospitalizations among patients with advanced cancer are often sentinel events prompting goals of care discussions and hospice transitions. Late referrals to hospice, especially those at the end of life, are associated with decreased quality of life and higher total health care costs. Inpatient management of patients with solid tumor malignancies is increasingly shifting from oncologists to oncology hospitalists. However, little is known about the impact of oncology hospitalists on the timing of transition to hospice. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospice discharge rate and time to hospice discharge on an inpatient oncology service led by internal medicine-trained hospitalists and a service led by oncologists. METHODS: At Smilow Cancer Hospital, internal medicine-trained hospitalists were integrated into one of two inpatient medical oncology services allowing comparison between the new, hospitalist-led service (HS) and the traditional, oncologist-led service (TS). Discharges from July 26, 2021, through January 31, 2022, were identified from the electronic medical record. The odds ratio for discharge disposition by team was calculated by logistic regression using a multinomial distribution. Adjusted length of stay before discharge was assessed using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: The HS discharged 47/400 (11.8%) patients to inpatient hospice, whereas the TS service discharged 18/313 (5.8%), yielding an adjusted odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI, 1.07-3.51; p = .03). Adjusted average length of stay before inpatient hospice disposition was 6.83 days (95% CI, 4.22-11.06) for the HS and 16.29 days (95% CI, 7.73-34.29) for the TS (p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Oncology hospitalists improve hospice utilization and time to inpatient hospice referral on an inpatient medical oncology service. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Patients with advanced cancer are often admitted to the hospital near the end of life. These patients generally have a poor chance of long-term survival and may prefer comfort-focused care with hospice. In this study, oncology hospitalists discharged a higher proportion of patients to inpatient hospice with less time spent in the hospital before discharge.

Association between prolonged metastatic free interval and recurrent metastatic breast cancer survival: findings from the SEER database.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of patients living with prolonged interval between initial breast cancer diagnosis and development of subsequent metastatic disease may be increasing with improved treatment. In order to counsel these patients as to their prognosis, we investigated the association between metastatic free interval (MFI) and subsequent survival from newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in a population-level U.S. cohort. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database was used to identify patients with both an initial stage 1-3 breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent MBC diagnosis recorded from 1988 to 2014. Patients were stratified by MFI (< 5 years, 5-10 years, > 10 years). The association between MFI and metastatic breast cancer-specific mortality (MBCSM) was analyzed with Fine-Gray competing risks regression. RESULTS: Five-year recurrent metastatic breast cancer-specific survival rate was 23%, 26%, and 35% for patients with MFI < 5, 5-10, and > 10 years, respectively. Patients with > 10 year MFI were less likely to die of breast cancer when compared with a referent group with < 5 years MFI (standard hazard ratio (SHR) 0.77 [95% CI 0.65-0.90] P < 0.001). There was no significant difference for patients with MFI of 5-10 years (SHR 0.92 [95% CI 0.81-1.04, P 0.191]) compared to < 5 years. Other prognostic factors like White race, lower tumor grade, and ER/PR-positive receptors were also associated with improved cancer-specific survival after diagnosis of MBC. CONCLUSION: Prolonged MFI greater than 10 years between initial breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent metastatic disease was found to be associated with improved recurrent MBC 5-year survival and decreased risk of breast cancer-specific mortality. This has potential implications for counseling patients as to prognosis, choice of treatment, as well as the stratification of patients considered for MBC clinical trials.

The impact of communication style on patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Communication between patients and health providers influences patient satisfaction, but it is unknown whether similarity in communication styles results in higher patient satisfaction. METHODS: This study was conducted in the Smilow Cancer Hospital Breast Center. During routine follow-up visits, patients completed a Communication Styles Assessment (CSA), health survey (SF-12), Princess Margaret Hospital Satisfaction with Doctor Questionnaire, and brief demographic form. Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers were also asked to complete the CSA. Patients and providers were blinded to each other's responses. A communication styles concordance score was calculated as the Pearson correlation between 80 binary CSA items for each provider/patient pair. Factors affecting patient satisfaction scores were assessed in mixed-effects models. RESULTS: In total, 330 patients were invited to participate; of these 289 enrolled and 245 returned surveys. One hundred seventy-four completed all survey components, and 18 providers completed the CSA. Among the factors considered, physical health score (effect size = 0.0058, 95% CI 0.00051 to 0.0011, p = 0.032) and employment status (0.12, 95% CI - 0.0094 to 0.25, p = 0.069) had the greatest impact on patient satisfaction. However, patients who were not employed and less physically healthy had significantly elevated satisfaction scores when their communication style was more similar to their provider's (1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.38, p = 0.0016). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were physically healthy and employed were generally more satisfied with their care. The similarity in communication styles of patients and providers had a greater impact on patient satisfaction for patients who were less physically healthy and not employed.

Association of Broad-Based Genomic Sequencing With Survival Among Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Community Oncology Setting.

Importance: Broad-based genomic sequencing is being used more frequently for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, little is known about the association between broad-based genomic sequencing and treatment selection or survival among patients with advanced NSCLC in a community oncology setting. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes between patients with advanced NSCLC who received broad-based genomic sequencing vs a control group of patients who received routine testing for EGFR mutations and/or ALK rearrangements alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patients with chart-confirmed advanced NSCLC between January 1, 2011, and July 31, 2016, and who received care at 1 of 191 oncology practices across the United States using the Flatiron Health Database. Patients were diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV or unresectable nonsquamous NSCLC who received at least 1 line of antineoplastic treatment. Exposures: Receipt of either broad-based genomic sequencing or routine testing (EGFR and/or ALK only). Broad-based genomic sequencing included any multigene panel sequencing assay examining more than 30 genes prior to third-line treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were 12-month mortality and overall survival from the start of first-line treatment. Secondary outcomes included frequency of genetic alterations and treatments received. Results: Among 5688 individuals with advanced NSCLC (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 41-85], 63.6% white, 80% with a history of smoking); 875 (15.4%) received broad-based genomic sequencing and 4813 (84.6%) received routine testing. Among patients who received broad-based genomic sequencing, 4.5% received targeted treatment based on testing results, 9.8% received routine EGFR/ALK targeted treatment, and 85.1% received no targeted treatment. Unadjusted mortality rates at 12 months were 49.2% for patients undergoing broad-based genomic sequencing and 35.9% for patients undergoing routine testing. Using an instrumental variable analysis, there was no significant association between broad-based genomic sequencing and 12-month mortality (predicted probability of death at 12 months, 41.1% for broad-based genomic sequencing vs 44.4% for routine testing; difference -3.6% [95% CI, -18.4% to 11.1%]; P = .63). The results were consistent in the propensity score-matched survival analysis (42.0% vs 45.1%; hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11]; P = .40) vs unmatched cohort (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.77]; log-rank P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving care in the community oncology setting, broad-based genomic sequencing directly informed treatment in a minority of patients and was not independently associated with better survival.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Overall Survival in Patients With Very Advanced Solid Tumors.

Importance: Two prominent organizations, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Quality Forum (NQF), have developed a cancer quality metric aimed at reducing systemic anticancer therapy administration at the end of life. This metric, NQF 0210 (patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life), has been critiqued for focusing only on care for decedents and not including the broader population of patients who may benefit from treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether the overall population of patients with metastatic cancer receiving care at practices with higher rates of oncologic therapy for very advanced disease experience longer survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cohort study used Flatiron Health, a deidentified electronic health record database of patients diagnosed with metastatic or advanced disease, to identify adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with 1 of 6 common cancers (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial cancer) treated at health care practices from 2015 to 2019. Practices were stratified into quintiles based on retrospectively measured rates of NQF 0210, and overall survival was compared by disease type among all patients treated in each practice quintile from time of metastatic diagnosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2023. Exposure: Practice-level NQF 0210 quintiles. Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival. Results: Of 78 446 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [11.1] years; 52.2% female) across 144 practices, the most common cancer types were NSCLC (34 201 patients [43.6%]) and colorectal cancer (15 804 patients [20.1%]). Practice-level NQF 0210 rates varied from 10.9% (quintile 1) to 32.3% (quintile 5) for NSCLC and 6.8% (quintile 1) to 28.4% (quintile 5) for colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed between patients treated at the highest and the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles. Compared with patients seen at practices in the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles, the hazard ratio for death among patients seen at the highest quintiles varied from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.99) for those with renal cell carcinoma to 1.41 (95% CI, 0.98-2.02) for those with urothelial cancer. These differences were not statistically significant after applying the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P = .008. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated at practices with higher NQF 0210 rates did not have improved survival. Future efforts should focus on helping oncologists identify when additional therapy is futile, developing goals of care communication skills, and aligning payment incentives with improved end-of-life care.

Prognostic Understanding, Goals of Care, and Quality of Life in Hospitalized Patients with Leukemia or Multiple Myeloma.

Background: Prior studies reveal a lack of illness understanding and prognostic awareness among patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated prognostic awareness and illness understanding among patients with acute leukemia and multiple myeloma (MM) and measured patient-hematologist discordance. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with acute leukemia and MM at Mount Sinai Hospital or Yale New Haven Hospital between August 2015 and February 2020. Patients were administered a survey assessing prognostic awareness, goals of care (GOC), and quality of life. Hematologists completed a similar survey for each patient. We assessed discordance across the cohort of patients and hematologists using the likelihood-ratio chi-square test and within patient-hematologist pairs using the kappa (κ) statistic. Results: We enrolled 185 patients (137 with leukemia and 48 with MM) and 29 hematologists. Among patients, 137 (74%) self-identified as White, 27 (15%) as Black, and 21 (11%) as Hispanic. Across the entire cohort, patients were significantly more optimistic about treatment goals compared with hematologists (p = 0.027). Within patient-hematologist pairs, hematologists were significantly more optimistic than patients with respect to line of treatment (κ = 0.03). For both leukemia and MM cohorts, patients were significantly more likely to respond "don't know" or deferring to a faith-based response with 88 (64%) and 34 (71%), respectively, compared with only 28 (20%) and 11 (23%) of hematologists, respectively. Conclusions: We observed significant discordance regarding prognosis and GOC among patients with hematological malignancies and their hematologists. These data support future interventions to improve prognostic understanding among this patient population to facilitate informed treatment choices.

Outcomes on an inpatient oncology service after the introduction of hospitalist comanagement.

BACKGROUND: Smilow Cancer Hospital (SCH) introduced hospitalist comanagement to the inpatient oncology service to address long lengths of stay and oncologist burnout. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of hospitalists on inpatient quality outcomes and oncologist experience. INTERVENTIONS: Hospitalists were introduced to one of two inpatient oncology services at SCH. Patients were assigned to teams equally based on capacity. Outcomes on the oncologist-led, traditional service (TS) were compared with outcomes on the hospitalist service (HS) 6 months after program implementation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included patient volume, length of stay (LOS), early discharge, discharge time, and 30-day readmission rate. Mixed linear or Poisson models that accounted for multiple admissions during the study duration were used. Oncologist experience was measured by survey. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 713 discharges, 400 from the HS and 313 from the TS (p = .0003). There was no difference in demographics or severity of illness (SOI) between services. Following adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, cancer type, and discharge disposition, the average LOS was 4.71 on the HS and 5.47 on the TS (p = .01). Adjusted early discharge rate was 6.22% on the HS and 2.06% on the TS (p = .01). Adjusted mean discharge time was 3:45 p.m. on HS and 4:16 p.m. on TS (p = .009). There was no difference in readmission rates. Oncologists reported less stress (p = .001) and a better ability to manage competing responsibilities (p < .0001) while working on the HS. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalist comanagement significantly improved LOS, early discharge, time of discharge, and oncologist experience without an increase in 30-day readmissions.

A Phase II Study Evaluating Orteronel, an Inhibitor of Androgen Biosynthesis, in Patients With Androgen Receptor (AR)-Expressing Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC).

BACKGROUND: AR is a targetable pathway with AR modulation inhibiting estrogen- and androgen-mediated cell proliferation. Orteronel is an oral, selective, nonsteroidal inhibitor of 17, 20-lyase, a key enzyme in androgen biosynthesis. This study evaluated single-agent orteronel in AR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Male/female patients with AR+ MBC were grouped in Cohort 1: AR+ TNBC with l-3 prior chemotherapy regimens or Cohort 2: AR+ HR+ (estrogen [ER+]/ progesterone receptor [PR+] positive) HER2+/- with 1 to 3 prior hormonal and at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen. Patients with HER2+ MBC must have received at least 2 lines of HER2-targeted therapy. Orteronel was administered at 300 mg BID; response rate was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled (Cohort 1, n = 26 and Cohort 2, n = 44). Median treatment duration was 7.1 weeks. Seven patients were on treatment for ≥6 months. One of the 21 evaluated patients in Cohort 1 (4.8%) had an objective response. In Cohort 2, none of the first 23 patients to be evaluated had a response and accrual was stopped. Median progression-free and overall survival were 1.8 and 8.3 months, respectively. Toxicities were predominantly Grade 1 or 2 nausea/vomiting (36%) and fatigue (31%). Grade 3 or 4 events in ≥5% of patients included increased amylase/lipase (10%) and hypertension (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Orteronel demonstrated limited clinical activity in heavily pre-treated AR+ MBC. Further development of orteronel in MBC is not recommended. Further efforts to validate the AR as a therapeutic target should focus on identifying new markers predictive of sensitivity to AR-targeted agents.

Impact of a Dedicated Cancer Urgent Care Center on Acute Care Utilization.

PURPOSE: Acute care imposes a significant burden on patients and cancer care costs. We examined whether an advanced practice provider-driven, cancer-specific urgent care center embedded within a large tertiary academic center decreased acute care use among oncology patients on active therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study anchored around the Oncology Extended Care Clinic (OECC) opening date. We evaluated two parallel 4-month periods: a post-OECC period that followed a 5-month run-in phase, and the identical calendar period 1 year earlier. Our primary outcomes included all emergency department (ED) presentations and hospital admissions during the 3-month window following the index provider visit. We used Poisson models to calculate absolute pre-OECC v post-OECC rate differences. RESULTS: Our cohort included 2,095 patients in the pre-OECC period and 2,188 in the post-OECC period. We identified 32.6 ED visits/100 patients and 41.2 hospitalizations/100 patients in the pre-OECC period, versus 28.2 ED visits/100 patients and 26.1 hospitalizations/100 patients post-OECC. After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and practice location, we observed a significant decrease of 4.6 ED visits/100 patients during the post-OECC period (95% CI, -8.92/100 to -0.28/100; P = .04) compared with the pre-OECC period. There was no significant association between the OECC opening and hospitalization rate (rate difference: -3.29 admissions/100 patients; 95% CI, -8.24/100 to 1.67/100; P = .19). CONCLUSION: Establishing a cancer-specific urgent care center was significantly associated with a modest decrease in emergency room utilization but not with hospitalization rate. Barriers included clinic capacity, patient awareness, and physician comfort with advanced practice provider autonomy. Optimizing workflow and standardizing clinical pathways can create benchmarks useful for value-based payments.

Conducting Goals-of-Care Discussions Takes Less Time Than Imagined.

PURPOSE: To describe the length of encounter during visits where goals-of-care (GoC) discussions were expected to take place. METHODS: Oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to facilitate GoC discussions with patients with newly diagnosed advanced solid-tumor cancer with a prognosis of < 2 years. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0-10 (0 = worst; 10 = best), with ≥ 8 indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Visits were audiotaped, and total encounter time was measured. RESULTS: The median face-to-face time oncologists spent during a GoC discussion was 15 minutes (range, 10-20 minutes). Among the different hospital types, there was no significant difference in encounter time. There was no difference in the length of the encounter whether a high-quality GoC discussion took place or not (15 v 14 minutes; P = .9). If there was imaging evidence of cancer progression, the median encounter time was 18 minutes compared with 13 minutes for no progression (P = .03). In a multivariate model, oncologist productivity, patient age, and Medicare coverage affected duration of the encounter. CONCLUSION: Oncologists can complete high-quality GoC discussions in 15 minutes. These data refute the common misperception that discussing such matters with patients with advanced cancer requires significant time.

Impact of High-Quality Goals-of-Care Discussions on Oncologist Productivity.

PURPOSE: To study factors that have an impact on the conduct of high-quality goals of care (GoC) discussions and productivity of oncologists among four different practice settings in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Solid-tumor oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to help them facilitate a GoC discussion with newly diagnosed patients with advanced cancer who had a less-than-2-year prognosis. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0 to 10 (0, worst; 10, best) with a score of 8 or better indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Productivity was measured by work revenue value units (wRVUs) per hour for the day each oncologist saw the study patient after imaging. RESULTS: The four sites differed significantly in the socioeconomic patient populations they served and in the characteristics of the oncologists who cared for the patients. Overall median productivity across the four sites was 3.6 wRVU/hour, with the highest observed in the community hospital (4.3 wRVU/hour) and the lowest in the rural setting (2.9 wRVU/hour; P < .001). There was no significant difference in productivity observed when high-quality GOC discussion occurred versus when it did not (3.6 v 3.7 wRVU/hour; P = .86). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in patient populations and oncologists' characteristics between the four practice settings, the conduct of high-quality GoC discussions did not affect productivity.

Adoption of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Patterns of Care at the End of Life.

PURPOSE: As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the care of patients with cancer, it is unclear whether treatment at the end of life (EOL) has changed. Because aggressive therapy at the EOL is associated with increased costs and patient distress, we explored the association between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of ICIs and treatment patterns at the EOL. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational study using patient-level data from a nationwide electronic health record-derived database. Patients had advanced melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; cancer types with an ICI indication), or microsatellite stable (MSS) colon cancer (a cancer type without an ICI indication) and died between 2013 and 2017. We calculated annual proportions of decedents who received systemic cancer therapy in the final 30 days of life, using logistic regression to model the association between the post-ICI FDA approval time and use of systemic therapy at the EOL, adjusting for patient characteristics. We assessed the use of chemotherapy or targeted/biologic therapies at the EOL, before and after FDA approval of ICIs using Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: There was an increase in use of EOL systemic cancer therapy in the post-ICI approval period for both melanoma (33.9% to 43.2%; P < .001) and NSCLC (37.4% to 40.3%; P < .001), with no significant change in use of systemic therapy in MSS colon cancer. After FDA approval of ICIs, patients with NSCLC and melanoma had a decrease in the use of chemotherapy, with a concomitant increase in use of ICIs at the EOL. CONCLUSION: The adoption of ICIs was associated with a substantive increase in the use of systemic therapy at the EOL in melanoma and a smaller yet significant increase in NSCLC.

Association of Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Expression Status With Receipt of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Initial approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was limited to patients with high levels of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. However, in the period after approval, it is not known how new evidence supporting efficacy of these treatments in patients with low or negative PD-L1 expression was incorporated into real-world practice. Objective: To evaluate the association between PD-L1 testing and first-line ICI use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018) used a deidentified nationwide electronic health record-derived database reflecting real-world care at more than 280 US community and academic cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care). Patients included those with advanced NSCLC without other identifiable variations diagnosed in the period after the US Food and Drug Administration's initial first-line approval of ICIs for patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥50%). Exposure: First-line ICI treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patterns of PD-L1 testing and first-line ICI treatment among all patients and patients stratified by tumor histologic type (squamous vs nonsquamous). Results: A total of 45 631 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.4 [9.6] years; 21 614 [47.4%] female) with advanced NSCLC were included in the study. PD-L1 testing increased from 468 (7.2%) in 2015 to 4202 (73.2%) in 2018. Within a subset of 7785 patients receiving first-line treatment in the period after first-line approval of pembrolizumab, those who received PD-L1 testing had a greater odds of receiving an ICI (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.89-2.36). Among patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥50%), 1541 (83.5%) received first-line ICI treatment; 776 patients (40.3%) with low PD-L1 expression (1%-49%) and 348 (32.3%) with negative PD-L1 expression (0%) also received ICIs. In addition, 755 untested patients (32.8%) were treated with a first-line ICI. The proportion of patients who received ICIs without PD-L1 testing increased during the study period (59 [17%] in quarter 4 of 2016 to 141 [53.8%] in quarter 4 of 2018). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, use of first-line ICI treatment increased among patients with advanced NSCLC with negative, low, or untested PD-L1 expression status in 2016 through 2018. These findings suggest that national practice was rapidly responsive to new clinical evidence rather than adhering to regulatory guidance in place at the time.

Treatment-Related Complications of Systemic Therapy and Radiotherapy.

IMPORTANCE: Systemic therapy and radiotherapy can be associated with acute complications that may require emergent care. However, there are limited data characterizing complications and the financial burden of cancer therapy that are treated in emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of treatment-related complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy, examine factors associated with inpatient admission, and investigate the overall financial burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was performed. Between January 2006 and December 2015, there was a weighted total of 1.3 billion ED visits; of these, 1.5 million were related to a complication of systemic therapy or radiotherapy for cancer. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to December 23, 2018. External cause of injury codes, Clinical Classifications Software, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patterns in treatment-related complications, patient- and hospital-related factors associated with inpatient admission, and median and total charges for treatment-related complications were the main outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1.5 million ED visits included in the analysis, 53.2% of patients were female and mean age was 63.3 years. Treatment-related ED visits increased by a rate of 10.8% per year compared with 2.0% for overall ED visits. Among ED visits, 90.9% resulted in inpatient admission to the hospital and 4.9% resulted in death during hospitalization. Neutropenia (136 167 [8.9%]), sepsis (128 171 [8.4%]), and anemia (117 557 [7.7%]) were both the most common and costliest (neutropenia: $5.52 billion; sepsis: $11.21 billion; and anemia: $6.78 billion) complications diagnosed on presentation to EDs; sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 21.00; 95% CI, 14.61-30.20), pneumonia (OR, 9.73; 95% CI, 8.08-11.73), and acute kidney injury (OR, 9.60; 95% CI, 7.77-11.85) were associated with inpatient admission. Costs related to the top 10 most common complications totaled $38 billion and comprised 48% of the total financial burden of the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Emergency department visits for complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy increased at a 5.5-fold higher rate over 10 years compared with overall ED visits. Neutropenia, sepsis, and anemia appear to be the most common complications; sepsis, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury appear to be associated with the highest rates of inpatient admission. These complications suggest that significant charges are incurred on ED visits.

Monitoring InBaskets With Feedback to Providers Enhances the Timeliness of Patient Care.

PURPOSE: Electronic health records have changed providers' workflow. Epic's InBasket supplants traditional communication and is a central hub for clinical information. Failure to promptly complete records impairs communication and revenue collection. By tracking providers' InBasket activities and offering feedback, we hoped to improve InBasket management and interdisciplinary communication. METHODS: We created a report to track 273 providers' InBasket activities, including ambulatory transcriptions, chart cosignatures, order cosignatures, patient calls, results, and billable encounters. The report showed how often and for how long each activity was delinquent. We completed three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. During cycle 1 (November to December 2015), we sent all providers automated e-mails with their monthly results. During cycle 2 (January to April 2016), we focused solely on billable encounter closure and sent targeted e-mails to providers with > 50 delinquent encounters. The e-mails stated that providers had 30 days to complete encounters or their practices would be closed to new patients; at 30 days, noncompliant providers had 60 days before practice suspension. During cycle 3 (May to September 2016), we continued to monitor and send targeted e-mails to providers who accumulated > 50 encounters. We modeled the financial impact of the intervention using net closure data, the report's aging function, and billing logs. RESULTS: InBasket monitoring with structured feedback decreased open encounters by 53.43%. We did not see improvements in the other metrics that the report tracked. We estimate that $231,724 was saved as a result of the intervention and $349,179 was lost to filing deadlines. CONCLUSION: Automated e-mails did not reduce open encounters; targeted e-mails to providers improved InBasket management.

Speed of Adoption of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors of Programmed Cell Death 1 Protein and Comparison of Patient Ages in Clinical Practice vs Pivotal Clinical Trials.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is increasing its pace of approvals for novel cancer therapeutics, including for immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein (anti-PD-1 agents). However, little is known about how quickly anti-PD-1 agents agents reach eligible patients in practice or whether such patients differ from those studied in clinical trials that lead to FDA approval (pivotal clinical trials). Objectives: To assess the speed with which anti-PD-1 agents agents reached eligible patients in practice and to compare the ages of patients treated in clinical practice with the ages of those treated in pivotal clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study, performed from January 1, 2011, through August 31, 2016, included patients from the Flatiron Health Network who were eligible for anti-PD-1 agents treatment of selected cancer types, which included melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative proportions of eligible patients receiving anti-PD-1 agents treatment and their age distributions. Results: The study identified 3089 patients who were eligible for anti-PD-1 agents treatment (median age, 66 [interquartile range, 56-75] years for patients with melanoma, 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years for patients with RCC, and 67 [interquartile range, 59-74] years for patients with NSCLC; 1742 male [56.4%] and 1347 [43.6%] female; 2066 [66.9%] white). Of these patients, 2123 (68.7%) received anti-PD-1 agents treatment, including 439 eligible patients with melanoma (79.1%), 1417 eligible patients with NSCLC (65.6%), and 267 eligible patients with RCC (71.2%). Within 4 months after FDA approval, greater than 60% of eligible patients in each cohort had received anti-PD-1 agents treatment. Overall, similar proportions of older and younger patients received anti-PD-1 agents treatment during the first 9 months after FDA approval. However, there were significant differences in age between clinical trial participants and patients receiving anti-PD-1 agents treatment in clinical practice, with more patients being older than 65 years in clinical practice (range, 327 of 1365 [60.6%] to 46 of 72 [63.9%]) than in pivotal clinical trials (range, 38 of 120 [31.7%] to 223 of 544 [41.0%]; all P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Anti-PD-1 agents rapidly reached patients in clinical practice, and patients treated in clinical practice differed significantly from patients treated in pivotal clinical trials. Future actions are needed to ensure that rapid adoption occurs on the basis of representative trial evidence.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy at the End of Life-Changes in Usage Pattern in the Immunotherapy Era.

This cohort study evaluates the rate of systemic anticancer therapy use among patients dying of cancer.

Impacts of Early Guideline-Directed 21-Gene Recurrence Score Testing on Adjuvant Therapy Decision Making.

PURPOSE: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay is used to help formulate adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Most frequently, medical oncologists order RS after surgery. Results take an additional 2 weeks to return, which can delay decision making. We conducted a prospective quality-improvement project to assess the impact of early guideline-directed RS ordering by surgeons before the first visit with a medical oncologist on adjuvant therapy decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgical oncologists ordered RS testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines at time of diagnosis or at time of surgery between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015. We measured the testing rate of patients eligible for RS, time to chemotherapy decisions, rates of chemotherapy use, accrual to RS-based clinical trials, cost, and physician acceptance of the policy and compared the results to patients who met eligibility criteria for early guideline-directed testing during the 6 months before the project. RESULTS: Ninety patients met eligibility criteria during the testing period. RS was ordered for 91% of patients in the early testing group compared with 76% of historical controls ( P < .001). Median time to chemotherapy decision was significantly shorter in the early testing group (20 days; 95% CI, 17 to 23 days) compared with historical controls (32 days; 95% CI, 29 to 35 days; P < .001). There were no significant differences in time to chemotherapy initiation, chemotherapy use, RS-based trial enrollment, or calculated costs between the groups. CONCLUSION: Early guideline-directed RS testing in selected patients is an effective way to shorten time to treatment decisions.

Preparing for Value-Based Payment: A Stepwise Approach for Cancer Centers.

Most cancer centers are ill-equipped to pursue value-based payment (VBP) because of limited information on their population's cost of care. Herein, we outline the stepwise approach used by Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven in our pursuit of better value care. First, we addressed institutional barriers. A move toward value required demonstration to Yale-New Haven Health System leadership that OCM would improve patient care, fund new infrastructure, and provide the opportunity to gain experience with VBP without a major threat to the financial stability of the health system. We evaluated patterns of care and found that of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED), 88% were admitted, 62% arrived during the workday, and 50% could have been stabilized with urgent care services. Within 30 days of death, 27% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 38% presented to the ED, and 52% were admitted. To quantify total cost of care, we accessed the 5% Medicare Limited Data Set to map out total cost of care for patients receiving chemotherapy at Smilow Cancer Hospital. Costs increased as patients moved through 6-month episodes, used the ED (patients with two or more visits were twice as expensive as those with one or fewer), or died during an episode (costs were twice as high as episodes in which the patient lived). To determine strategic interventions to improve value, we targeted investments in urgent care to reduce ED utilization, care management to prevent hospital admissions, and referral to palliative care for clarification of goals of care and avoidance of costly futile treatment. Developing internal metrics to evaluate success will require monitoring our interventions by having utilization measures for each site of care and individual provider.

Chemotherapy Use, Performance Status, and Quality of Life at the End of Life.

IMPORTANCE: Although many patients with end-stage cancer are offered chemotherapy to improve quality of life (QOL), the association between chemotherapy and QOL amid progressive metastatic disease has not been well-studied. American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend palliative chemotherapy only for solid tumor patients with good performance status. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between chemotherapy use and QOL near death (QOD) as a function of patients' performance status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multi-institutional, longitudinal cohort study of patients with end-stage cancer recruited between September 2002 and February 2008. Chemotherapy use (n = 158 [50.6%]) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status were assessed at baseline (median = 3.8 months before death) and patients with progressive metastatic cancer (N = 312) following at least 1 chemotherapy regimen were followed prospectively until death at 6 outpatient oncology clinics in the United States. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient QOD was determined using validated caregiver ratings of patients' physical and mental distress in their final week. RESULTS: Chemotherapy use was not associated with patient survival controlling for clinical setting and patients' performance status. Among patients with good (ECOG score = 1) baseline performance status, chemotherapy use compared with nonuse was associated with worse QOD (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P = .01). Baseline chemotherapy use was not associated with QOD among patients with moderate (ECOG score = 2) baseline performance status (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2.21; P = .87) or poor (ECOG score = 3) baseline performance status (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.46-3.89; P = .59). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although palliative chemotherapy is used to improve QOL for patients with end-stage cancer, its use did not improve QOD for patients with moderate or poor performance status and worsened QOD for patients with good performance status. The QOD in patients with end-stage cancer is not improved, and can be harmed, by chemotherapy use near death, even in patients with good performance status.