Search

Globally, cancer care delivery is marked by inequalities, where some economic, demographic, and sociocultural groups have worse outcomes than others. In this review, we sought to identify patient-facing interventions designed to reduce disparities in cancer care in both high- and low-income countries. We found two broad categories of interventions that have been studied in the current literature: Patient navigation and telehealth. Navigation has the strongest evidence base for reducing disparities, primarily in cancer screening. Improved outcomes with navigation interventions have been seen in both high- and low-income countries. Telehealth interventions remain an active area of exploration, primarily in high income countries, with the best evidence being for the remote delivery of palliative care. Ongoing research is needed to identify the most efficacious, cost-effective, and scalable interventions to reduce barriers to the receipt of cancer care globally.

PURPOSE: The discovery of driver oncogenes, such as ROS1, has led to the development of targeted therapies. Despite clinical advancements, gaps remain in our understanding of characteristics of patients with ROS1-positive ( ROS1+) cancers. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess demographic, clinical, and environmental characteristics associated with ROS1+ cancers worldwide. METHODS: In collaboration with a panel of patients with ROS1+ cancer, we designed and conducted a 204-question online assessment regarding the demographic, clinical, and environmental factors of patients with ROS1+ cancers. We invited patients with ROS1+ cancers to participate in the study from May 2016 to December 2018. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients from 18 countries worldwide responded and completed at least 90% of the survey. The majority of respondents were female (n = 191; 69%), non-Hispanic white (n = 202; 73%), never-smokers (n = 180/240; 75%). Most were diagnosed with lung cancer (n = 261/277; 94%) and stage IV disease (n = 201/277; 76%). The majority received chemotherapy in first (n = 137/199; 69%) and second (n = 103/199; 52%) lines of therapy. For patients diagnosed with lung cancer after the availability of crizotinib (n = 199), only a minority (n = 55/199; 28%) reported receiving crizotinib in the first line of therapy. CONCLUSION: This study is the first global, patient-designed approach, to our knowledge, to comprehensively assess demographic, clinical, and environmental characteristics associated with ROS1+ cancers. Future efforts include assessing these characteristics as well as patient-reported outcomes and treatment responses longitudinally.

Purpose As genetic testing expands, patients are increasingly found to carry pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes that are less familiar to most clinicians, specifically genes other than those causing hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome ( BRCA1 and BRCA2) and Lynch syndrome. Little is known about the subsequent behaviors of such patients in terms of managing cancer risks and informing relatives. Methods All adult patients who were counseled and tested at the Stanford Cancer Genetics Clinic from January 2013 to July 2015 and had a pathogenic variant in a non- BRCA1/2, non–Lynch syndrome gene were invited to participate in a telephone interview about adherence to risk-reducing recommendations, genetic testing by relatives, and new cancer incidence. Results Fifty-seven (40%) of 142 eligible patients were successfully contacted, and all 57 patients participated; median follow-up was 677 days (range, 247 to 1,401 days). Most patients (82%; 95% CI, 70% to 90%) recalled that a risk-reducing intervention (screening, medication, or surgery) was recommended, and most patients (85%; 95% CI, 72% to 93%) adhered to the recommendation. Nearly all patients (91%; 95% CI, 81% to 97%) shared results with relatives, and most patients (78%; 95% CI, 64% to 88%) reported that a relative was subsequently tested. During the follow-up period, 9% of patients (95% CI, 3% to 19%) developed second cancers, and in 14% of patients (95% CI, 7% to 26%), a first-degree relative developed cancer, some of which were detected by recommended screening. Conclusion Patients with a pathogenic variant in a less familiar cancer susceptibility gene report high adherence to risk-reducing interventions. Furthermore, in the 57 carriers and subsequently tested relatives with two years of follow-up, a total of three cancers (one in a proband and two in relatives) were detected through interventions recommended on the basis of the pathogenic variant. These results suggest a potential benefit of genetic counseling and testing for pathogenic variants in less familiar genes.

8 Background: Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. Despite initiatives which train providers to have ACP conversations using the serious illness care program (SICP) conversation guide, few patients have a documented prognosis discussion due to busy clinic schedules and difficulty in deciding the right times to have such conversations. We designed an intervention to improve ACP by incorporating a validated computer model to identify patients at high risk for mortality in combination with lay care coaches. We investigated whether this would improve end of life quality measures. Methods: Four Stanford clinics were included in this pilot; all received SICP training. Two clinics (thoracic and genitourinary) underwent the intervention (computer model + care coach), and two clinics (sarcoma and cutaneous) served as the control. For providers in the intervention, an email was sent every Sunday listing the metastatic cancer patients who would be seen in clinic the following week and a predicted prognosis generated by the model. A lay care coach contacted patients with a predicted survival ≤2 years to have an ACP conversation with them. After, the care coach notified the provider to suggest discussion regarding prognosis with the patient. Criteria for a patient visit to be included in the analysis were: age ≥18, established patient, has sufficient EMR data for computer model, and no prior prognosis documentation. The primary outcome was documentation of prognosis in the ACP form by the end of the week following the clinic visit. Results: 5330 visits in 1298 unique patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 67 (range 19-97); 790 male, 508 female. 1970 visits were with patients with ≤2 year predicted survival. Prognosis discussion was documented by providers in the ACP form for 8.1% of intervention visits compared to 0.07% of control visits (p=0.001 in mixed effects model). Of the 1298 unique patients, 84 were deceased by December 2020. 41.7% died in the hospital. 59.5% were enrolled in hospice prior to death, and 19.0% were hospitalized in the ICU ≤14 days prior to death. Of deceased patients with ACP form prognosis documentation, 5.0% had ≥2 hospitalizations in the 30 days before death compared to 23.4% of deceased patients with no prognosis documented (p=0.10). For ≥ 2 ER visits in the 30 days before death, the proportions were 5.0% and 20.3% (p=0.17). Conclusions: This pilot study supports that our intervention is associated with higher rates of prognosis discussions and documentation. There was a trend towards better quality of end of life care as noted by higher rates of hospice enrollment and less intensive care at end of life. These results merit further investigation as a means to improve goal-concordant care and ensure appropriate care for cancer patients at the end of life.

e18609 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid changes in cancer care delivery. We sought to examine oncology provider perspectives on clinical decisions and care delivery during the pandemic and to compare provider views early versus late in the pandemic. Methods: We invited oncology providers, including attendings, trainees and advanced practice providers, to complete a cross-sectional online survey using a variety of outreach methods including social media (Twitter), email contacts, word of mouth and provider list-serves. We surveyed providers at two time points during the pandemic when the number of COVID-19 cases was rising in the United States, early (March 2020) and late (January 2021). The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests to evaluate differences in early versus late provider responses. Results: A total of 132 providers completed the survey and most were white (n = 73/132, 55%) and younger than 49 years (n = 88/132, 67%). Respondents were attendings in medical, surgical or radiation oncology (n = 61/132, 46%), advanced practice providers (n = 48/132, 36%) and oncology fellows (n = 16/132, 12%) who predominantly practiced in an academic medical center (n = 120/132, 91%). The majority of providers agreed patients with cancer are at higher risk than other patients to be affected by COVID-19 (n = 121/132, 92%). However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of early versus late providers who thought delays in cancer care were needed. Early in the pandemic, providers were more likely to recommend delays in curative surgery or radiation for early-stage cancer (p < 0.001), delays in adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery (p = 0.002), or delays in surveillance imaging for metastatic cancer (p < 0.001). The majority of providers early in the pandemic responded that “reducing risk of a complication from a COVID-19 infection to patients with cancer” was the primary reason for recommending delays in care (n = 52/76, 68%). Late in the pandemic, however, providers were more likely to agree that “any practice change would have a negative impact on patient outcomes” (p = 0.003). At both time points, the majority of providers agreed with the need for other care delivery changes, including screening patients for infectious symptoms (n = 128/132, 98%) and the use of telemedicine (n = 114/132, 86%) during the pandemic. Conclusions: We found significant differences in provider perspectives of delays in cancer care early versus late in the pandemic which reflects the swiftly evolving oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of changes in treatment and care delivery on outcomes for patients with cancer.

181 Background: In “window of opportunity” (WOO) clinical trials, people with newly diagnosed early-stage cancer are exposed to an experimental drug during the period of time between diagnosis and definitive anti-cancer treatment. These trials allow investigators to study drug efficacy in untreated disease, which can expedite drug development. However, for trial participants, the WOO approach requires them to decide about an altruistic clinical trial during an intense time immediately after cancer diagnosis. This qualitative study aimed to understand patient perspectives on WOO clinical trials. Methods: We recruited adults newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer who were awaiting definitive therapy at a single academic medical center. We developed an interview guide grounded in the theoretical framework, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). TBP is a well-validated decision-making model with three domains that guide behavior: (1) attitudes (2) normative factors and (3) perceived difficulty of a behavior. We conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed to ensure interrater reliability and content analysis was performed to assess themes that emerged. Results: We interviewed 15 women (age 32-72) with early-stage breast cancer, and the majority were White (n = 12, 80%) and at least college educated (n = 12, 80%). Key themes that emerged included favorable attitudes towards participating in a WOO trial that were altruistic, including the desire to contribute to science (n = 10, 67%) and to help future breast cancer patients (n = 5, 33%). Several individuals also identified a potential benefit to themselves (n = 10, 67%), including access to a targeted drug (n = 4, 27%) and adding meaning to their diagnosis (n = 3, 20%). However, most interviewees reported concerns about drug side effects (n = 12, 80%) and whether side effects would impact other planned treatments (n = 10, 67%). Interviewees also expressed family would be an important normative factor in decision-making (n = 8, 53%). A key theme that emerged as a difficulty was the potential delay in standard treatment (n = 14, 93%). Despite this concern, at the end of the interviews, most interviewees stated they would participate in a WOO trial if offered (n = 10, 67%). Conclusions: WOO trials are becoming increasingly common in oncology research. In this qualitative study, interviewees weighed altruism against the possibility delaying or impacting other treatments. Our results may inform trial design and communication approaches in future WOO efforts.

e19392 Background: The treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has transformed in the past two years. Both Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab and Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib are approved regimens for first-line treatment of intermediate to poor-risk patients with advanced RCC. The choice between these immunotherapy-based combinations for first-line therapy is highly debated; no prior study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of both combinations compared to Sunitinib. Methods: We used a decision analytic Markov model informed by the recent Checkmate-214 and Keynote-426 phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate costs and effectiveness of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib, and Sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC from a US health payer perspective. We used the model to extrapolate survival beyond the closure of the trials and examined the robustness of our findings with sensitivity analyses. Main outcomes were life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, all discounted at 3% annually. Results: Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab increased life expectancy by 0.58 years at cost of approximately $190,000 per QALY gained compared to Sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib increased life expectancy by 0.39 years at a cost of approximately $861,000 per QALY gained compared to Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab. The results were not sensitive to reasonable changes in drug costs and quality of life estimates. Both combinations cost more than the traditional willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $150,000 per QALY gained. A 20% price reduction is required for Nivolumab and Ipilimumab to be cost-effective and a 48% price reduction is required for Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Both Nivolumab plus Ipilumumab and Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib provide increased longevity and reduced morbidity relative to Sunitinib. However, the prolonged duration of treatment and doublet-drug pricing results in high-costs. Price reductions are required for both of the immunotherapy-based combinations to be cost-effective. [Table: see text]

Shivani Khanna,1 Kristine N Kim,1 Muhammad M Qureshi,1 Ankit Agarwal,1 Divya Parikh,1 Naomi Y Ko,2 Alexander E Rand,1 Ariel E Hirsch1 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, 2Department of Hematology Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston MA, USA Purpose and objective: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment type on time to treatment (TTT) in patients with breast cancer treated at a safety net medical center with a diverse patient population.Patients and methods: A total of 1,130 patients were diagnosed and treated for breast cancer between 2004 and 2014 at our institution. We retrospectively collected data on patient age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, marital status, insurance coverage, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, hormone receptor status, and treatment dates. TTT was determined from the date of breast cancer biopsy to treatment start date. Nonparametric Mann–Whitney U-test (or Kruskal–Wallis test when appropriate) and multivariable quantile regression models were employed to assess for significant differences in TTT associated with each factor.Results: Longer median TTT was noted for Black (P=0.002) and single (P=0.002) patients. AJCC stage IV patients had shorter TTT (27.5days) compared to earlier AJCC patients (36, 35, 37, 37 days for stage 0, I, II, III, respectively), P=0.028. Age, primary language spoken, insurance coverage, and hormone receptor status had no significant impact on TTT. On multivariate analysis, race/ethnicity remained the only significant factor with Black reporting longer TTT, P=0.025. However, race was not a significant factor for time from first to second treatment. More Black patients were noted to be single (P

e18342 Background: Few studies have evaluated the perspectives and clinical practices of oncology providers in regards to assisting patients with financial toxicity. Our study sought to assess providers’ attitudes regarding their role in addressing patients’ financial concerns, understand practice patterns in discussing cost of care, and obtain feedback on potential interventions to help address existing barriers. Methods: We developed an 18-question electronic, anonymous survey informed by an extensive literature search and piloted with three physicians with health services research experience. We emailed the survey to 75 attending physicians in Medical Oncology, Hematology, and Radiation Oncology, 117 advance practice practitioners (APPs) and 46 trainees. Responses during the study period 12/12/2018-1/31/2019 were analyzed. Results: A total of 71 (response rate of 30%) participants completed the survey, including 31 attending physicians, 28 APPs, and 12 trainees. Sixty-two percent of participants agreed that oncology providers should openly discuss cost of care with patients. There was wide variation in opinion around whether providers should offer the same treatment recommendations to all patients regardless of cost, with one third stating they agreed, one third stating they disagreed, and one third stating they were neutral. Sixty-one percent of participants did not use any cost-effectiveness tools in decision making. Sixty-three percent of respondents stated that a gap in knowledge of out of pocket costs was the number one barrier to helping patients avoid financial toxicity. The highest ranked intervention of those listed was a guide on available resources for patients with financial needs, voted for by 70% of respondents. Conclusions: Providers identified many barriers at our institution to discussing cost of care, including lack of transparency of out of pocket costs and lack of awareness of available resources. Providers were overwhelmingly interested in incorporating institutional resources and cost-effectiveness tools into their clinical practices. These findings can inform provider-level interventions to better address the financial burden patients face with their cancer care.

Background Anaphylaxis to egg or severe egg allergy has been considered a contraindication to receiving trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (TIV). Objective To evaluate the safety of TIV among severely egg allergic children. Methods A 2-phase, multicenter study at 7 sites was conducted between October 2010 and March 2012. Inclusion criteria included a history of a severe reaction, including anaphylaxis, to the ingestion of egg and a positive skin test result or evidence of serum specific IgE antibody to egg. Phase 1 consisted of a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of TIV administration to egg allergic children, using a 2-step approach; group A received 0.1 mL of influenza vaccine, followed in 30 minutes if no reaction with the remainder of an age-appropriate dose, whereas group B received an injection of normal saline followed in 30 minutes if no reaction with the full 100% of the age-appropriate dose. Phase 2 was a retrospective analysis of single dose vs split-dose administration of TIV in eligible study participants who declined participation in the randomized controlled trial. Results Thirty-one study participants were prospectively evaluated in the randomized controlled trial (group A, 14; group B, 17); 45.1% had a history of anaphylaxis after egg ingestion. A total of 112 participants were retrospectively evaluated (87 with the single dose and 25 with the split dose); 77.6% of participants had a history of anaphylaxis after egg ingestion. All participants in both phases received TIV without developing an allergic reaction. Conclusion TIV administration is safe even in children with histories of severe egg allergy. Use of 2-step split dosing appears unnecessary because a single dose was well tolerated.