Search

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. We aimed to improve ACP using a computer model to select high-risk patients, with shorter predicted survival, for conversations with providers and lay care coaches. Outcomes included ACP documentation frequency and end-of-life quality measures. METHODS: In this study of a quality improvement initiative, providers in four medical oncology clinics received Serious Illness Care Program training. Two clinics (thoracic/genitourinary) participated in an intervention, and two (cutaneous/sarcoma) served as controls. ACP conversations were documented in a centralized form in the electronic medical record. In the intervention, providers and care coaches received weekly e-mails highlighting upcoming clinic patients with < 2 year computer-predicted survival and no prior prognosis documentation. Care coaches contacted these patients for an ACP conversation (excluding prognosis). Providers were asked to discuss and document prognosis. RESULTS: In the four clinics, 4,968 clinic visits by 1,251 patients met inclusion criteria (metastatic cancer with no prognosis previously documented). In their first visit, 28% of patients were high-risk (< 2 year predicted survival). Preintervention, 3% of both intervention and control clinic patients had ACP documentation during a visit. By intervention end (February 2021), 35% of intervention clinic patients had ACP documentation compared with 3% of control clinic patients. Providers' prognosis documentation rate also increased in intervention clinics after the intervention (2%-27% in intervention clinics, P < .0001; 0%-1% in control clinics). End-of-life care intensity was similar in intervention versus control clinics, but patients with ≥ 1 provider ACP edit met fewer high-intensity care measures ( P = .04). CONCLUSION: Combining a computer prognosis model with care coaches increased ACP documentation.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Window of opportunity trials (WOT) are increasingly common in oncology research. In WOT participants receive a drug between diagnosis and anti-cancer treatment, usually for the purpose of investigating that drugs effect on cancer biology. This qualitative study aimed to understand patient perspectives on WOT.We recruited adults diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer awaiting definitive therapy at a single-academic medical center to participate in semi-structured interviews. Thematic and content analyses were performed to identify attitudes and factors that would influence decisions about WOT participation.We interviewed 25 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. The most common positive attitudes toward trial participation were a desire to contribute to research and a hope for personal benefit, while the most common concerns were the potential for side effects and how they might impact fitness for planned treatment. Participants indicated family would be an important normative factor in decision-making and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, deemed the absence of family members during clinic visits a barrier to enrollment. Factors that could hinder participation included delay in standard treatment and the requirement for additional visits or procedures. Ultimately, most interviewees stated they would participate in a WOT if offered (N = 17/25).In this qualitative study, interviewees weighed altruism and hypothetical personal benefit against the possibility of side effect from a WOT. In-person family presence during trial discussion, challenging during COVID-19, was important for many. Our results may inform trial design and communication approaches in future window of opportunity efforts.

Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the ‘Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved’ (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. Methods: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). Conclusions: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected cancer care delivery for patients, including cancellation or delays in surveillance imaging, clinic visits, and treatments. Yet, gaps remain in understanding the extent of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and potential ways to overcome these impacts. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews among adults with a past or current history of cancer in the United States. Participants from a parent quantitative survey were purposively sampled to participate in a qualitative interview. Interview questions addressed (1) experiences with cancer care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) unmet concerns regarding care and other impacts; and (3) approaches to improve patient experiences. We conducted inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven interviews were conducted. Four themes emerged: (1) concern regarding the risk of COVID-19 infection among patients with cancer and their families; (2) disruptions in care increased patients' anxiety about poor cancer outcomes and death from cancer; (3) significant social and economic impacts; and (4) increased social isolation and anxiety about the future. Suggestions for current clinical practice include (1) clear communication on patients' health risks; (2) increased attention to mental health needs and access to mental health services; and (3) routine use of telemedicine as frequently as possible when clinically appropriate. CONCLUSION: These rich findings reveal the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer and potential approaches to mitigate the impact from the patient perspective. The findings not only inform current cancer care delivery but also health system responses to future public health or environmental crises that may pose a unique health risk for patients with cancer or disrupt their care.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of cancer care is a source of significant distress for patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to understand factors associated with financial toxicity in three distinct care systems. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients in three care systems, Stanford Cancer Institute (SCI), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS), and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC), from October 2017 to May 2019. We assessed demographic factors, employment status, and out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) and administered the validated COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted linear regression models to analyze factors associated with financial toxicity. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four of 578 patients (77%) completed the entire COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool and were included in the analysis. Most respondents at SCI were White, with annual household income (AHI) > $50,000 USD and Medicare insurance. At the VAPAHCS, most were White, with AHI ≤ $50,000 USD and insured by the Veterans Administration. At SCVMC, most were Asian and/or Pacific Islander, with AHI ≤ $25,000 USD and Medicaid insurance. Low AHI ( P < .0001), high OOPCs ( P = .003), and employment changes as a result of cancer diagnosis ( P < .0001) were associated with financial toxicity in the pooled analysis. There was variation in factors associated with financial toxicity by site, with employment changes significant at SCI, OOPCs at SCVMC, and no significant factors at the VAPAHCS. CONCLUSION: Low AHI, high OOPCs, and employment changes contribute to financial toxicity; however, there are variations based on site of care. Future studies should tailor financial toxicity interventions within care delivery systems.

PURPOSE: Advance care planning (ACP) and symptom screening are nationally recommended for all patients with advanced stages of cancer. Yet, routine delivery of such care remains challenging because of multilevel barriers. We hired and trained community health workers (CHWs) to assist with delivery of these services across the United States. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to these team-based approaches. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 44 health care professionals in 21 cancer clinics in seven US cities using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the framework analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants noted barriers and facilitators to implementation, adoption, and maintenance of CHW-led ACP and symptom management approaches. Participants were initially skeptical; however, they noted a positive shift in their views over time because of personal experiences and effectiveness in their clinics. There was significant variation in adoption with some using a prescriptive top-down approach and others a bottom-up approach. Most agreed that the combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches would be most efficient and effective for promoting team-based care. All participants discussed implementation and provided suggestions for maintenance including organizational support, leadership, and CHW retention. CONCLUSION: CHW-led ACP and proactive symptom management interventions are effective and accepted by cancer care professionals at scale. Tailoring on the basis of organization and local contexts is required to ensure successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance of these effective team-based care delivery approaches.

Latinx adults with cancer, as compared with non-Latinx White adults, are diagnosed with more advanced stages and experience worse quality of life. Identifying barriers in cancer care among low-income Latinx adults is crucial to designing and implementing culturally appropriate interventions. The objective of this study was to explore the specific barriers encountered by Latinx adults after a cancer diagnosis and perspectives on the use of community health workers (CHWs) to address these barriers.We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with low-income Latinx adults with a past or current history of cancer and/or their caregivers in a community oncology clinic located in an agricultural community in California. Analysis was based in grounded theory and performed using the constant comparative method.Sixteen interviews were conducted with patients alone (n = 11), a caregiver alone (n = 1), and patient-caregiver pairs (n = 4 patients; n = 4 caregivers). Four major themes emerged: (1) low cancer health literacy including cancer diagnosis and treatment, cancer fatalism, navigating next steps after diagnosis, advance directives, and precision medicine; (2) challenges in communicating and receiving supportive services due to language barriers; (3) stress and anxiety regarding financial hardships related to job loss, insurance barriers, and the COVID-19 pandemic; (4) the need for supportive, bilingual, and bicultural personnel to assist in overcoming these challenges.Low-income Latinx adults with cancer and their caregivers experience health literacy, communication, and financial barriers that impede quality cancer care delivery. Embedding CHWs in the care team could be one way to address these barriers to culturally concordant, accessible care.

Introduction: Advance care planning and symptom screening among patients with cancer require team-based approaches to ensure that these services are equitably and appropriately delivered. In several organizations across the United States, we trained and employed lay health workers (LHWs) to assist with delivering these services for patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to understand LHWs’ views on delivering these services. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 LHWs in 6 US-based clinical cancer care settings in 4 large cities. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Results: Participants noted the importance of their role in assisting with the delivery of advance care planning (ACP) and symptom screening services. Participants noted the importance of developing relationships with patients to engage openly in ACP and symptom screening discussions. Participants reported that ongoing training provided skills and empowered them to discuss sensitive issues with patients and their caregivers. Participants described challenges in their roles including communication with oncology providers and their own emotional well-being. Participants identified solutions to these challenges including formal opportunities for introduction with oncology clinicians and staff and grievance sessions with LHWs and other team members. Discussion: LHWs from several organizations endorsed the importance of their roles in ensuring the delivery of ACP and proactive symptom screening. LHWs noted challenges and specific solutions to improve their effectiveness in delivering these important services to patients after their diagnosis of cancer.

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.

Disparities in cancer have been documented for decades and continue to persist despite clinical advancements in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. Disparate cancer outcomes continue to affect many populations in the United States and globally, including racial and ethnic minorities, populations with low income and education, and residents of rural areas or low socioeconomic neighborhoods, among others. Addressing cancer disparities requires approaches that are multilevel. Addressing social determinants of health, such as removing obstacles to health (e.g., poverty, discrimination, access to housing and education, jobs with fair pay, and health care) can reduce cancer disparities. However, to achieve cancer health equity, multilevel approaches are required to ensure that access to high-quality cancer care and equitable receipt of evidence-based services can reduce cancer disparities. Policy, health system interventions, and innovative delivery and health care coverage approaches by private and public payers, employer-based payers, and labor union organizations can assist in ensuring access to and receipt of high-quality cancer care while addressing the high costs of care delivery. Partnerships among patients, caregivers, employers, health care providers, and health care payers can make impactful changes in the way in which cancer care is delivered and, in turn, can assist in reducing cancer disparities.

Background Lack of health insurance coverage is associated with poor access and receipt of cancer care and survival in the United States. Disruptions in coverage are common among low-income populations, but little is known about associations of disruptions with cancer care, including prevention, screening, and treatment, as well as outcomes of stage at diagnosis and survival. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies of health insurance coverage disruptions and cancer care and outcomes published between 1980 and 2019. We used the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases and identified 29 observational studies. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and synthesized qualitatively. Results Studies evaluated associations between coverage disruptions and prevention or screening (31.0%), treatment (13.8%), end-of-life care (10.3%), stage at diagnosis (44.8%), and survival (20.7%). Coverage disruptions ranged from 4.3% to 32.8% of patients age-eligible for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Between 22.1% and 59.5% of patients with Medicaid gained coverage only at or after cancer diagnosis. Coverage disruptions were consistently statistically significantly associated with lower receipt of prevention, screening, and treatment. Among patients with cancer, those with Medicaid disruptions were statistically significantly more likely to have advanced stage (odds ratios = 1.2-3.8) and worse survival (hazard ratios = 1.28-2.43) than patients without disruptions. Conclusions Health insurance coverage disruptions are common and adversely associated with receipt of cancer care and survival. Improved data infrastructure and quasi-experimental study designs will be important for evaluating the associations of federal and state policies on coverage disruptions and care and outcomes.

Oncologist well-being is critical to initiating and maintaining the physician-patient relationship, yet many oncologists suffer from symptoms of burnout. Burnout has been linked to poor physical and mental health, as well as increased medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and workforce attrition. In this Call to Action article, we discuss causes of and interventions for burnout and moral distress in oncology, highlight existing interventions, and provide recommendations for addressing burnout and improving well-being at the individual and organizational levels to deliver ethical, quality cancer care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Persistent disparities remain in the incidence, mortality, and quality of lung cancer care received among minorities and populations with low income. This study aims to evaluate perspectives of low-income and minority patients with lung cancer on health system–level barriers and facilitators to high-quality lung cancer care delivery. METHODS: Informed by community-based participatory research, we conducted semistructured interviews with 48 patients with lung cancer in the San Francisco Peninsula and Central Coast regions of California. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants described four major structural and process barriers in current lung cancer care: unmet psychosocial support needs, lack of understanding of precision medicine, undertreated symptoms, and financial concerns about cancer, which exacerbate concerns regarding families' well-being. Participants described that trusting relationship with their cancer care team members was a facilitator for high-quality care and suggested that proactive integration of proactive psychosocial and community-based peer support could overcome some of the identified barriers. CONCLUSION: This study identified modifiable health system lung cancer care delivery barriers that contribute to persistent disparities. Opportunities to improve care include integration of community-based peer support.

Introduction Disparities in precision cancer care delivery among low-income Latinx adults are well described. In prior work, we developed a community health worker-led goals of care and cancer symptom assessment intervention. The objective of this study was to adapt this intervention for a community setting, incorporating precision cancer care delivery. Methods We used a two-phased systematic approach to adapt an evidence-based intervention for our community. Specifically, we used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify barriers and facilitators to precision cancer care delivery via 1-hr interviews with Latinx adults with cancer, Latinx caregivers, community leaders, primary care and oncology clinicians, and community health workers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method and grounded theory analysis. Phase 2 involved interviews with key community advisors using the Expert Panels Method to decide on final adaptations. Results Using this community-engaged approach, we identified specific intervention adaptations to ensure precision cancer care delivery in a community setting, which included: (a) expansion of the intervention inclusion criteria and mode of delivery; (b) integration of low-literacy precision cancer care intervention activities in Spanish in collaboration with community-based organizations; (c) ensuring goals reflective of patient and community priorities. Conclusions This systematic and community-engaged approach to adapt an intervention for use in delivering precision cancer care strengthened an evidence-based approach to promote the needs and preferences of patients and key community stakeholders.

Precision cancer care has reduced cancer-related mortality. However, minorities remain less likely to receive precision medicine than White populations with cancer due to language and system-level barriers. Precision medicine knowledge increases involvement in treatment decisions and receipt of such treatment. Few interventions exist that seek to improve precision medicine knowledge among low-income and racial and ethnic minorities with cancer.We designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-delivered intervention on patients' knowledge of precision medicine in partnership with a community oncology clinic in Monterey County, California. Eligibility includes adults with newly diagnosed, progression or recurrence of cancer, low-income, or racial and ethnic minorities, or uninsured, insured by Medicaid or by a local agricultural employer. We will randomize 110 patients with cancer to the intervention or usual cancer care. The intervention group will be assigned to a CHW who will deliver culturally tailored and personalized education on precision medicine and advance care planning, screen for social determinants of health barriers and connect patients to community resources. The primary outcome is precision medicine knowledge measured by a 6-item survey adapted from Davies at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months post-enrollment. Exploratory outcomes include patient satisfaction with decision, activation, health care utilization, and receipt of evidence-based precision medicine care.This trial will assess whether the CHW-led intervention can increase knowledge of precision medicine as well as several exploratory outcomes including receipt of evidence-based cancer care among low-income and racial and ethnic minority adults with cancer.gov Registration # NCT04843332.

Veterans have higher lung cancer incidence and mortality rates than civilians. Frequently, Veterans with lung cancer suffer from undertreated symptoms due to complex comorbidities, limited social support, and reluctance in discussing symptoms with their oncologists. Evidence supports proactive symptom screening among civilians with cancer; however, no studies to date have evaluated whether Veteran volunteer-led proactive symptom screening is feasible and effective among Veterans with lung cancer. The "Improving Supportive Care for Patients with Thoracic Malignancies" study was co-developed by a pre-established Veteran and Family Advisory Board. Veterans with lung cancer are randomized in a 1:1 allocation to either a 9-month intervention combined with usual oncology care (intervention group) or usual oncology care alone (control group). A Veteran volunteer is assigned to all Veterans in the intervention group and conducts weekly symptom assessments using validated symptom surveys and reviews all symptom scores with an oncology nurse practitioner. The primary outcome is to evaluate whether the intervention improves documentation of symptoms at 6 months post-enrollment among Veterans in the intervention group as compared with the control group. Secondary outcomes include changes in patient-reported outcomes (i.e., symptom burden, patient activation, patient satisfaction with decision, health-related quality of life) and differences in acute care use (i.e., emergency department visits, hospitalizations) from baseline (time of enrollment in the study) to 3-, 6-, and 9-months post enrollment. This study addresses a significant concern expressed by Veterans and their caregivers. Findings can advance our understanding of how to improve symptom-burden among Veterans with lung cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT03216109.

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: Poor patient experiences and increasing costs from undertreated symptoms require approaches that improve patient-reported outcomes and lower expenditures. We developed and evaluated the effect of a lay health worker (LHW)-led symptom screening intervention on satisfaction, self-reported overall and mental health, health care use, total costs, and survival. METHODS: From November 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, we enrolled in this study all newly diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees with stage 3 or 4 solid tumors or hematologic malignancies who were receiving care in a community oncology practice. We evaluated symptom changes from baseline to 12 months for the intervention group. We compared with a control group (a historical cohort of Medicare Advantage enrollees diagnosed with cancer from November 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015) changes in satisfaction and overall and mental health with validated assessments at diagnosis and 5 months postdiagnosis, 12-month health care use, total costs, and survival. RESULTS: Among 186 patients in the intervention group and 102 in the control group, most were female and non-Hispanic white or Hispanic, and the mean age was 79 years. There were no survival differences between the groups. Relative to the control group, the intervention group experienced improvements in satisfaction with care (difference-in-difference: 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.63), overall health (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.49 to 3.32), and mental or emotional health (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.46 to 3.38) over time; fewer hospitalizations (mean ± standard deviation: 0.72 ± 0.96 v 1.02 ± 1.44; P = .03) and emergency department visits per 1,000 members per year (0.61 ± 0.98 v 0.92 ± 1.53; P = .03), and lower median (interquartile range) total health care costs ($21,266 [$8,102-$47,900] v $31,946 [$15,754-$57,369]; P = .02). CONCLUSION: An LHW-led symptom screening intervention could be one solution to improve value-based cancer care.

175 Background: In 2009, ASCO confirmed that addressing cancer care disparities is critical for the Society and committed to approaches to eliminate such disparities. Yet, gaps remain in identifying the best approaches to do so. It remains unknown which cancer care providers serve patients from “underserved populations'' (defined as individuals who have historically received inadequate health care and health care services), what unmet needs they experience in their cancer care delivery, and how best to engage and support these providers. The objectives of this study were to explore challenges faced by providers serving underserved patients to inform development of a broader online survey and identify solutions that ASCO can implement to better support these providers. Methods: A multi-phase mixed-methods approach was utilized. Phase 1 involved key informant semi-structured interviews with 12 oncology providers caring for adult patients in the US from April to May 2021. Phase 2 involved survey development based on themes identified in Phase 1. The survey assessed: provider needs; processes for eliciting, documenting, and addressing social and economic needs of patients; and how ASCO could best support these providers. Phase 3 involved email distribution of the online survey in May 2022 to 5800 individuals identified through ASCO’s customer database. Eligibility criteria included providing care for adults with cancer in the US and prior consent to receive ASCO survey communications. Results: Of 477 respondents, the majority were ASCO members (88%), in an academic practice (57%), medical oncologists (77%), non-Hispanic (89%) and/or Caucasian/White (67%) and had > 15 years’ clinical experience (57%). A majority (60%) provided ≥25% of their clinical time providing cancer care to underserved populations and routinely engaged with administration to secure resources (61%) and local community organizations to obtain services (42%) for patients. Most (43-77%) indicated that a social worker/case manager was primarily responsible for addressing patient social needs. The majority reported that identification and dissemination of best practices (55%) and development of a return-on-investment business model (60%) would best help address patient needs. Some respondents expressed a desire to collaborate with ASCO on policy reform (32%) and for ASCO to help build or strengthen partnerships with local initiatives (29%). Conclusions: This is the first US-based survey assessing barriers and solutions to delivering cancer care among underserved populations. The findings from this work provide insights about how ASCO can help equip practices to address the social needs of their patients. Further work will be conducted to develop and implement suggested solutions.

189 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of US cancer deaths. Providing high quality care near end-of-life (EOL) is critical. Hispanic and Black patients with cancer receive less palliative and hospice care referrals and have less knowledge of advance directives compared to non-Hispanic Whites. While it is posited that such inequities can result in disparities in acute care use and goal-discordant care at the EOL among racial/ethnic minority populations, few studies have evaluated whether acute care utilization at the EOL for patients with lung cancer differs by race/ethnicity. Methods: Adult patients with a lung cancer diagnosis who died between 2005-2019 were identified in the California Cancer Registry database linked to a hospital discharge abstracts from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. ICD9/10 codes were used to identify aggressive EOL care defined as: hospital/ED visit, death, intubation, CPR, and dialysis within 14-days of death. Logistic regression models estimated the odds of such care by race and ethnicity. Models were adjusted in apriori considerations of age, income, socioeconomic status, insurance, geography, histology, stage, comorbidities, and care receipt at NCI-designated hospitals. Results: Among 207,429 patients included, mean age was 74 years, 51% were male, 83.6% lived in urban areas, 28% had income 200% below Federal Poverty Level, 48.8% had Medicare, 91.8% received care in a non-NCI designated cancer center and 48.3% had stage IV disease. Black, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander patients compared to Non-Hispanic Whites had increased odds of aggressive EOL care (See Table). Conclusions: This study demonstrates disparities in acute care use and aggressive care delivery among racial and ethnic minorities with lung cancer at the EOL. Solutions are urgently needed to reduce such disparities in care.[Table: see text]

160 Background: Veteran populations have higher lung cancer incidence and lower overall survival rates than non-veterans. Despite clinical advancements in lung cancer which reduce lung cancer death rates and access to care, many Veterans face barriers in receipt of such guideline-based care due to many factors including complex comorbidities, low health literacy, and significant economic and social disadvantages. In fact, the underrepresentation of Veterans in clinical trials confer even more difficulty to ensure cancer treatment and prognosis thoughtfully considers their unique challenges and needs. Few studies have evaluated Veterans’ perspectives regarding unmet needs and potential solutions to address equitable care delivery among these populations. The objective of this study was to evaluate Veterans’ perspectives regarding their lung cancer care to identify modifiable barriers that could be addressed to improve care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen Veterans diagnosed with lung cancer at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Results: All participants noted the main barrier to lung cancer care was transportation with inadequate financial coverage for gas and extensive commutes that contributed to significant anxiety and stress regarding their cancer care. Participants noted challenges in navigating the health system and suggested better understanding of the structure and function of cancer care team members to overcome these barriers. Participants noted difficulty comprehending and interpreting their cancer prognosis and were unaware of advance directives. All participants were unaware of precision medicine, namely molecular tumor testing or genomic cancer sequencing and its implications on their treatments. Conclusions: This study revealed critical gaps in lung cancer among Veterans in one VA facility. Targeted solutions should be considered to address barriers identified which include transportation access, proactive distress management, and knowledge regarding lung cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic abruptly disrupted cancer care. The impact of these disruptions on patient experiences remain relatively understudied. The objective of this study was to assess patients' perspectives regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their experiences, including their cancer care, emotional and mental health, and social determinants of health, and to evaluate whether these outcomes differed by cancer stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey among adults with cancer across the United States from April 1, 2020 to August 26, 2020 using virtual snowball sampling strategy in collaboration with professional organizations, cancer care providers, and patient advocacy groups. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics, χ2 and t tests. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve people with cancer participated and represented 38 states. The majority were non-Hispanic White (n=183; 58.7%) and female (n=177; 56.7%) with median age of 57 years. Ninety-one percent spoke English at home, 70.1% had health insurance, and 67% had access to home internet. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (n=67; 21.5%). Most had Stage 4 disease (n=80; 25.6%). Forty-six percent (n=145) experienced a change in their care due to COVID-19. Sixty percent (n=187) reported feeling very or extremely concerned that the pandemic would affect their cancer and disproportionately experienced among those with advanced cancer stages compared with earlier stages (P

PURPOSE: New approaches are needed to overcome low supportive care and clinical trial participation among low-income and minority adults with cancer. The objective of this project was to determine whether a lay health worker intervention was associated with improvements in supportive care and trial participation. METHODS: We conducted a quality improvement initiative in collaboration with a union organization. We enrolled union members newly diagnosed with cancer into a 6-month lay health worker–led intervention from October 15, 2016, to February 28, 2017. The primary outcome was goals of care. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health care use, and trial participation. All outcomes except HRQOL were compared with a cohort of union members diagnosed within the 6-month preintervention period. RESULTS: Sixty-six adults participated in the intervention group, and we identified 72 adults in the control group. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The mean age was 56.0 years; 47 (34%) were male, and 22 were White (16%). Within 6 months enrollment, more intervention group participants, as compared with the control, had clinician-documented goals of care (94% v 26%; P < .001) and participated in cancer clinical trials (72% v 22%; P < .001). At 4 months postenrollment, as compared with baseline, intervention participants experienced HRQOL improvements (mean difference, 3.98 points; standard deviation, 2.83; P < .001). Before death, more intervention group participants used palliative care and hospice than the control group. CONCLUSION: Lay health worker–led interventions may improve supportive care and clinical trial participation among low-income and minority populations with cancer.

The full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care disparities, particularly by race and ethnicity, remains unknown.To assess whether the race and ethnicity of patients with cancer was associated with disparities in cancer treatment delays, adverse social and economic effects, and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate trusted sources of COVID-19 information by race and ethnicity.This national survey study of US adults with cancer compared treatment delays, adverse social and economic effects, concerns, and trusted sources of COVID-19 information by race and ethnicity from September 1, 2020, to January 12, 2021.The COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcome was delay in cancer treatment by race and ethnicity. Secondary outcomes were duration of delay, adverse social and economic effects, concerns, and trusted sources of COVID-19 information.Of 1639 invited respondents, 1240 participated (75.7% response rate) from 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and 5 US territories (744 female respondents [60.0%]; median age, 60 years [range, 24-92 years]; 266 African American or Black [hereafter referred to as Black] respondents [21.5%]; 186 Asian respondents [15.0%]; 232 Hispanic or Latinx [hereafter referred to as Latinx] respondents [18.7%]; 29 American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or multiple races [hereafter referred to as other] respondents [2.3%]; and 527 White respondents [42.5%]). Compared with White respondents, Black respondents (odds ratio [OR], 6.13 [95% CI, 3.50-10.74]) and Latinx respondents (OR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.49-5.14]) had greater odds of involuntary treatment delays, and Black respondents had greater odds of treatment delays greater than 4 weeks (OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.11-8.81]). Compared with White respondents, Black respondents (OR, 4.32 [95% CI, 2.65-7.04]) and Latinx respondents (OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 3.57-10.53]) had greater odds of food insecurity and concerns regarding food security (Black respondents: OR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.34-3.04]; Latinx respondents: OR, 2.94 [95% CI, [1.86-4.66]), financial stability (Black respondents: OR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.79-7.08]; Latinx respondents: OR, 4.29 [95% CI, 1.98-9.29]), and affordability of cancer treatment (Black respondents: OR, 4.27 [95% CI, 2.20-8.28]; Latinx respondents: OR, 2.81 [95% CI, 1.48-5.36]). Trusted sources of COVID-19 information varied significantly by race and ethnicity.In this survey of US adults with cancer, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with treatment delay disparities and adverse social and economic effects among Black and Latinx adults. Partnering with trusted sources may be an opportunity to overcome such disparities.

Background: A relatively high proportion of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) females with lung cancer have never smoked. We used an integrative data approach to assemble a large-scale cohort to study lung cancer risk among AANHPIs by smoking status with attention to representation of specific AANHPI ethnic groups. Methods: We leveraged electronic health records (EHRs) from two healthcare systems—Sutter Health in northern California and Kaiser Permanente Hawai'i—that have high representation of AANHPI populations. We linked EHR data on lung cancer risk factors (i.e., smoking, lung diseases, infections, reproductive factors, and body size) to data on incident lung cancer diagnoses from statewide population-based cancer registries of California and Hawai'i for the period between 2000 and 2013. Geocoded address data were linked to data on neighborhood contextual factors and regional air pollutants. Results: The dataset comprises over 2.2 million adult females and males of any race/ethnicity. Over 250,000 are AANHPI females (19.6% of the female study population). Smoking status is available for over 95% of individuals. The dataset includes 7,274 lung cancer cases, including 613 cases among AANHPI females. Prevalence of never-smoking status varied greatly among AANHPI females with incident lung cancer, from 85.7% among Asian Indian to 14.4% among Native Hawaiian females. Conclusion: We have developed a large, multilevel dataset particularly well-suited to conduct prospective studies of lung cancer risk among AANHPI females who never smoked. Impact: The integrative data approach is an effective way to conduct cancer research assessing multilevel factors on cancer outcomes among small populations.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Background/objectives To evaluate differences in end-of-life cost trajectories for cancer patients treated through Medicare versus by the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Design A retrospective analysis of VA and Medicare administrative data from FY 2010 to 2014. We employed three-level generalized estimating equations to evaluate monthly cost trajectories experienced by patients in their last year of life, with patients nested within hospital referral region. Setting Care received at VA facilities or by Medicare-reimbursed providers nationwide. Participants A total of 36,401 patients dying from cancer and dually enrolled in VA and Medicare. Measurements We evaluated trajectories for total, inpatient, outpatient, and drug costs, using the last 12 months of life. Cost trajectories were prioritized as costs are not directly comparable across Medicare and VA. Patients were assigned to be VA-reliant, Medicare-reliant or Mixed-reliant based on their healthcare utilization in the last year of life. Results All three groups experienced significantly different cost trajectories for total costs in the last year of life. Inpatient cost trajectories were significantly different between Medicare-reliant and VA-reliant patients, but did not differ between VA-reliant and Mixed-reliant patients. Outpatient and drug cost trajectories exhibited the inverse pattern: they were significantly different between VA-reliant and Mixed-reliant patients, but not between VA-reliant and Medicare-reliant patients. However, visual examination of cost trajectories revealed similar cost patterns in the last year of life among all three groups; there was a sharp rise in costs as patients approach death, largely due to inpatient care. Conclusion Despite substantially different financial incentives and organization, VA- and Medicare-treated patients exhibit similar patterns of increasing end-of-life costs, largely driven by inpatient costs. Both systems require improvement to ensure quality of end-of-life care is aligned with recommended practice.

ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, cancer health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. In 2009, ASCO committed to addressing differences in cancer outcomes in its original policy statement on cancer disparities. Over the past decade, despite novel diagnostics and therapeutics, together with changes in the cancer care delivery system such as passage of the Affordable Care Act, cancer disparities persist. Our understanding of the populations experiencing disparate outcomes has likewise expanded to include the intersections of race/ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation and gender identity, sociodemographic factors, and others. This updated statement is intended to guide ASCO’s future activities and strategies to achieve its mission of conquering cancer for all populations. ASCO acknowledges that much work remains to be done, by all cancer stakeholders at the systems level, to overcome historical momentum and existing social structures responsible for disparate cancer outcomes. This updated statement affirms ASCO’s commitment to moving beyond descriptions of differences in cancer outcomes toward achievement of cancer health equity, with a focus on improving equitable access to care, improving clinical research, addressing structural barriers, and increasing awareness that results in measurable and timely action toward achieving cancer health equity for all.

INTRODUCTION: Community-engaged adaptations of evidence-based interventions are needed to improve cancer care delivery for low-income and minority populations with cancer. The objective of this study was to adapt an intervention to improve end-of-life cancer care delivery using a community- partnered approach. METHODS: We used a two-step formative research process to adapt the evidence-based Lay health workers Educate Engage Encourage Patients to Share (LEAPS) cancer care intervention. The first step involved obtaining a series of adaptations through focus groups with 15 patients, 12 caregivers, and 6 leaders and staff of the Unite Here Health (UHH) payer organization, and 12 primary care and oncology care providers. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. The second step involved finalization of adaptations from a community advisory board comprised of 4 patients, 2 caregivers, 4 oncology providers, 2 lay health workers and 4 UHH healthcare payer staff and executive leaders. RESULTS: Using this community-engaged approach, stakeholders identified critical barriers and solutions to intervention delivery which included: 1) expanding the intervention to ensure patient recruitment; 2) including caregivers; 3) regular communication between UHH staff, primary care and oncology providers; and 4) selecting outcomes that reflect patient-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic and community-partnered approach to adapt an end-of-life cancer care intervention strengthened this existing intervention to promote the needs and preferences of patients, caregivers, providers, and healthcare payer leaders. This approach can be used to address cancer care delivery for low-income and minority patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity describes the financial burden imposed onto patients by a cancer diagnosis and is a growing concern. Many clinicians do not currently address financial toxicity despite patients’ desire for them to do so. Current literature explores physicians’ perspectives but does not clearly define an actionable role clinicians can take to address financial toxicity. We sought to fill this gap by first assessing clinicians’ perspective on their role in alleviating financial toxicity at our institution. We subsequently aimed to identify current barriers to mitigating financial toxicity and to garner feedback on clinician-oriented interventions to address this growing problem. METHODS: We developed an 18-item electronic, anonymous survey through Redcap. We invited all oncology clinicians including attending physicians, advance practice providers, and trainees at our institution to participate. RESULTS: A total of 72 clinicians (30%) completed the survey. The majority agreed that clinicians have a role in addressing cost. The top three barriers to discussing cost with patients were knowledge of out of pocket costs, time, and awareness of resources. Less than half of respondents used an existing comparative cost tool to incorporate cost consciousness into treatment decisions. The most desired intervention was an institutional resource guide. In open-ended comments, the most common barrier described was transparency of out of pocket costs, and the most common solution proposed was a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing financial concerns patient face. DISCUSSION: Improving price transparency, incorporating existing resources into clinical practice, and streamlining multi-disciplinary support may help overcome barriers to addressing financial toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advancements in cancer care, persistent gaps remain in the delivery of high-value end-of-life cancer care. The aim of this study was to examine views of health care payer organization stakeholders on approaches to the redesign of end-of-life cancer care delivery strategies to improve care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 34 key stakeholders (eg, chief medical officers, medical directors) in 12 health plans and 22 medical group organizations across the United States. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Participants endorsed strategies to redesign end-of-life cancer care delivery to improve end-of-life care. Participants supported the use of nonprofessionals to deliver some cancer services through alternative formats (eg, telephone, Internet) and delivery of services in nonclinical settings. Participants reported that using nonprofessional providers to offer some services, such as goals of care discussions and symptom assessments, via telephone in community-based settings or in patients’ homes, may be more effective and efficient ways to deliver high-value cancer care services. Participants described challenges to redesign, including coordination with and acceptance by oncology providers and payment models required to financially support clinical changes. Some participants suggested solutions, including providing funding and logistic support to encourage implementation of care delivery innovations and to financially reward practices for delivery of high-value end-of-life cancer care services. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders from payer organizations endorsed opportunities to redesign cancer care delivery, and some are willing to provide logistic, design, and financial support to practices interested in improving end-of-life cancer care.

6530 Background: Only a small fraction of patients with cancer participate in treatment trials. Patients identifying as members of racial and ethnic minority groups are consistently underrepresented in these trials. A recent systematic review reported that patients, regardless of race and ethnicity, are willing to enroll in trials if asked to participate by their treating clinician. Prospective and longitudinal data and metrics at the site- and clinician-level are necessary to understand whether patients are equitably considered for clinical trials. Methods: ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a self-assessment for trial sites to record and gauge the number of patients across races and ethnicities screened, offered, and enrolled into clinical trials. Research sites, from across the US, were recruited through an open call to apply to participate in the ASCO-ACCC Pilot Project. There were 65 sites assigned to this pilot study, which tested the feasibility and utility of the site assessment. Sites were asked to enter 2019 and 2020 aggregate data for each step along the clinical trial enrollment continuum by select races and ethnicities (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White) and overall. Results: 62 of 65 sites completed the study and represented a range of settings and practice types (61% academic, 26% hospital/health system, 13% independent). Only 2 sites (3%) were able to provide the data requested at each enrollment step in the assessment (table). Sites that collected the data did not do so routinely (table) and most had to compile data through multiple sources and/or manual extraction (40-100% across enrollment steps). Sites with missing data reported they did not collect data at all (36-64% across enrollment steps), did not collect data in a systematic way (0-29% across enrollment steps), or stated it would be too burdensome to manually review charts to extract data (12-29% across enrollment steps). Conclusions: Data collection and routine evaluation of participation metrics, by race and ethnicity, are necessary to assess and monitor equity and diversity in clinical trials. Most sites in this study did not collect, or routinely collect, data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to clinical trials. Without these data, sites are unable to evaluate and monitor whether their patients have equitable access to clinical trials or establish strategies to address any inequities. ASCO and ACCC will continue to partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting such data in a systematic and automated way, such as through electronic health record systems. [Table: see text]

TPS1601 Background: Cancer mortality has declined over the past decade due to clinical advances including precision medicine. Despite these clinical advancements, low-income and racial/ethnic minorities experience worse cancer morbidity and mortality. Specifically, these populations have lower rates of genomic testing and are significantly underrepresented in precision medicine research. Community-based, culturally tailored approaches are needed to address these ongoing disparities. The objective of this randomized controlled trial is to test whether a community health worker (CHW)-led intervention can improve patient understanding of precision medicine topics and delivery of evidence-based cancer care more than usual cancer care alone. Methods: We developed a county-wide cancer care initiative and a community advisory board (CAB) comprised of patient, caregiver, payer, clinician, and governmental stakeholders in Monterey County—comprised of 60% Latinx, non-English speaking, immigrant populations. As guided by the CAB, we developed a CHW-model to provide education on precision medicine and screen for complications of social determinants of health in 1:1 discussions with patients. In collaboration with a local community oncology clinic, we plan to randomize 110 patients with cancer who are receiving active treatment into usual care or usual care plus the CHW-led intervention. Inclusion criteria includes patients who are: 1) 18 years of age or older; 2) racial/ethnic minorities; 3) low-income; 4) uninsured or insured by Medicaid and/or local agricultural employers; and 5) speak English or Spanish. Exclusion criteria includes: 1) lack capacity to consent to study procedures; 2) plan to move from the area within a year. We will measure the effect of the intervention on patient knowledge of precision medicine using a survey adapted from Davies et al. Secondary outcomes include effect on health-related quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, patient activation using the Patient Activation Measure, satisfaction using the Satisfaction with Decision Scale, prognosis and treatment preferences using an adapted survey by Weeks et al., healthcare utilization, and receipt of evidence-based cancer care. We will administer surveys at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months post-enrollment. To date, 67 participants have been enrolled. This study will show if CHW-models increase knowledge of precision medicine in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT04843332.

6500 Background: Low-income and minority populations have less activation in their cancer care, lower health-related quality of life, greater acute care use and total costs of care than affluent and white populations. Community-based interventions are needed to improve patient experiences and quality of cancer care equitably among these populations. We used community-based participatory methods to refine a previously tested intervention for use in urban communities. The intervention, LEAPS, uses community health workers trained to activate patients in discussions with their cancer clinicians regarding advance care planning and symptom-burden and to connect patients with community-based resources to overcome social determinants of health. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of LEAPS in collaboration with an employer-union health plan in Atlantic City, NJ and Chicago, IL. Members of the employer-union health plan with newly diagnosed with hematologic and solid tumor cancers were randomized to the 6-month LEAPS intervention. The objective of the study was to determine whether LEAPS improved quality of life (primary). Secondarily, we evaluated the effect of LEAPS on patient activation, acute care use, and total costs of care. Methods: We used generalized linear regression models to evaluate differences in quality of life and patient activation scores between groups from baseline to 4- and 12-months post-enrollment and regression models offset for length of follow-up to compare emergency department use, hospitalizations, and total costs of care. Results: A total of 160 patients were consented and randomized into the study (80 intervention; 80 control). There were no differences in demographic or clinical factors across groups. The majority were non-White (74%), female (53%), mean age 57 years with breast (31%) or lung cancer (21%) and Stage 3 or 4 (63%) disease. At 4- and 12-months follow-up, the intervention group had greater improvements in quality of life overtime as compared to the control group (difference in difference: 11.5 p < 0.001) and greater change in patient activation overtime (difference in difference: 11.9 (p < 0.001)). At 12-months follow-up there were no differences in emergency department use (0.44 (0.71) versus 0.73 (0.22) p = 0.22) however intervention group participants had fewer hospitalizations (1.55 (0.86) vs. 2.29 (1.31), p = 0.002) and lower median total costs of care ($72,585 vs. $153,980, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Integrating community-based interventions into clinical cancer care delivery for low-income and minority populations can significantly improve patient activation, reduce hospitalizations and total costs of care. These interventions may represent a sustainable resource to facilitate equitable, value-based cancer care. Clinical trial information: NCT03699748.

1520 Background: Improving lung cancer care among Veterans is a priority within the Veterans Affairs due to higher rates of lung cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality among Veterans compared to non-veterans. Unaddressed symptom burden is common due to many factors including complex comorbidities, psychosocial challenges, smoking history and limited social support networks. Additionally, complications from social determinants of health can obstruct successful discussions of symptom-burden between Veterans and their clinical care teams which can limit compliance with recommended symptom management strategies. To overcome these barriers, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a lay volunteer-led proactive symptom assessment and symptom intervention. The objective was to determine if the intervention improved clinician documentation from baseline to 6-months post-enrollment compared to usual care. Secondary outcomes included change in patient activation, health-related quality of life (HrQOL), and symptom-burden. Methods: Patients were randomized into the lay volunteer proactive symptom assessment intervention plus usual cancer care (intervention group) or usual cancer care alone (control group). We conducted electronic health record review to assess primary cancer-clinician symptom documentation of Veterans’ symptoms identified as moderate-to-severe at baseline and 6-months using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Patient surveys with validated assessments were used to assess patient activation, HrQOL and symptom burden at baseline (time of enrollment) and 6-months post-enrollment. We used regression models to evaluate differences in our primary and secondary outcomes. Results: 60 Veterans were consented and randomized into the study (29 control; 31 intervention). There were no differences in demographic or clinical factors across groups. The median age was 70 years (range 56-85), 95% were male, 70% identified their race as White, 53% were married and 48% had a 2-year or 4-year college degree. The majority had at least 3 comorbidities (54%), diagnosed with stage 3 or 4 (62%) and received systemic treatment with chemotherapy and/or radiation (77%). At 6-months post-enrollment as compared to baseline, the intervention group had greater improvements in symptom documentation (56% from 12.5% vs. 29% from 43%, p = 0.01), greater improvements in patient activation (p

BACKGROUND The collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is an emerging priority internationally, guiding clinical care, quality improvement projects and research studies. After the deployment of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys in routine outpatient workflows at an academic cancer center, electronic health record data were used to evaluate survey completion rates and self-reported global health measures across 2 tumor types: breast and prostate cancer. METHODS This study retrospectively analyzed 11,657 PROMIS surveys from patients with breast cancer and 4411 surveys from patients with prostate cancer, and it calculated survey completion rates and global physical health (GPH) and global mental health (GMH) scores between 2013 and 2018. RESULTS A total of 36.6% of eligible patients with breast cancer and 23.7% of patients with prostate cancer completed at least 1 survey, with completion rates lower among black patients for both tumor types (P

Objectives Cancer costs have increased substantially in the past decades, prompting specialty societies to urge oncologists to consider value in clinical decision making. Despite oncologists' crucial role in guiding cancer care, current literature is sparse with respect to the oncologists' views on value. Here, we evaluated oncologists perceptions of the use and measurement of value in cancer care. Methods We conducted in-depth, open-ended interviews with 31 US oncologists practicing nationwide in various environments. Oncologists discussed the definition, measurement, and implementation of value. Transcripts were analyzed using matrix and thematic analysis. Results Oncologists' definitions of value varied greatly. Some described versions of the standard health economic definition of value, that is, cost relative to health outcomes. Many others did not include cost in their definition of value. Oncologists considered patient goals and quality of life as important components of value that they perceived were missing from current value measurement. Oncologists prioritized a patient-centric view of value over societal or other perspectives. Oncologists were inclined to consider the value of a treatment only if they perceived treatment would pose a financial burden to patients. Oncologists had differing opinions regarding who should be responsible for determining whether care is low value but generally felt this should remain within the purview of the oncology community. Conclusions Oncologists agreed that cost was an important issue, but disagreed about whether cost was involved in value as well as the role of value in guiding treatment. Better clarity and alignment on the definition of and appropriate way to measure value is critical to the success of efforts to improve value in cancer care.

Background: For Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) females, lung cancer is one of the most common cancers and the leading cause of cancer death. More than half of lung cancers among AANHPI females occur among never-smokers, but incidence rates of lung cancer according to smoking status have not been available. Purpose: With a large, integrated dataset of electronic health record data from two healthcare systems—Sutter Health in Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Hawai'i—linked to state cancer registry data on incident lung cancer diagnoses 2000-2013, we describe incidence of lung cancer according to smoking status among females across detailed race and ethnicity. Methods: We calculated age-adjusted incidence rates for lung cancer according to smoking status and detailed race and ethnicity among females, focusing on AANHPI ethnic groups, and assessed relative incidence across racial and ethnic groups. The study population included N=1,222,694 females (n=244,147 AANHPI), n=3,297 (n=535) of whom were diagnosed with lung cancer. We examined relative incidence across group defined by detailed race and ethnicity. We also provided incidence of lung cancer among AANHPI males who never smoked in a supplement. Results: Among AANHPI female groups, proportions of lung cancers among never-smokers ranged from 25% among Native Hawaiian to 80% among Chinese females. Incidence of lung cancer among never-smoking AANHPI females as an aggregate was 17.1 per 100,000 (95% CI: 14.9, 19.4), but rates varied widely across ethnic groups. Never-smoking Chinese females had the highest rate (22.8; 95% CI: 17.3, 29.1). Except for Japanese females, incidence among every never-smoking AANHPI female ethnic group was higher than that of all never-smoking females combined. Never-smoking AANHPI males also have higher incidence of lung cancer compared to other groups defined by race and ethnicity. Conclusions: The integrative data analysis approach offers great advantages over traditional cancer cohorts, but it does require substantial time and effort to assure data confidentiality, integrity, and transparency to provide robust results. However, with convergence epidemiology—in this case leveraging needed expertise in data science and analysis to answer an epidemiology question—it is also a valuable approach to study disparate cancer outcomes among small populations. Illustrating this, our study is the first to document high rates of lung cancer among never-smoking AANHPI ethnic groups, dispels the myth that AANHPI females are at overall reduced risk of lung cancer, and demonstrates the need to disaggregate this highly diverse population. Results should inform lung cancer prevention strategies among AANHPI populations. Citation Format: MIndy C. DeRouen, Alison J. Canchola, Caroline A. Thompson, Anqi Jin, Sixiang Nie, Carmen Wong, Daphne Lichtensztajn, Laura Allen, Manali I. Patel, Yihe G. Daida, Harold S. Luft, Salma Shariff-Marco, Peggy Reynolds, Heather A. Wakelee, Su-Ying Liang, Beth E. Waitzfelder, Iona Cheng, Scarlett L. Gomez. Applying a data integrative and convergence epidemiology approach to study multilevel risk factors for cancer in distinct AANHPI populations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr IA-21.

ObjectiveVideo-based advanc care planning (ACP) tools have been studied in varied medical contexts; however, none have been developed for patients undergoing major surgery. Using a patient- and family-centredness approach, our objective was to implement human-centred design (HCD) to develop an ACP decision support video for patients and their family members when preparing for major surgery.Design and methodsThe study investigators partnered with surgical patients and their family members, surgeons and other health professionals to design an ACP decision support video using key HCD principles. Adapting Maguire’s HCD stages from computer science to the surgical context, while also incorporating Elwyn et al’s specifications for patient-oriented decision support tool development, we used a six-stage HCD process to develop the video: (1) plan HCD process; (2) specify where video will be used; (3) specify user and organisational requirements; (4) produce and test prototypes; (5) carry out user-based assessment; (6) field test with end users.ResultsOver 450 stakeholders were engaged in the development process contributing to setting objectives, applying for funding, providing feedback on the storyboard and iterations of the decision tool video. Throughout the HCD process, stakeholders’ opinions were compiled and conflicting approaches negotiated resulting in a tool that addressed stakeholders’ concerns.ConclusionsOur patient- and family-centred approach using HCD facilitated discussion and the ability to elicit and balance sometimes competing viewpoints. The early engagement of users and stakeholders throughout the development process may help to ensure tools address the stated needs of these individuals.Trial registration numberNCT02489799.