Survival After Implementation of a Decision Support Tool to Facilitate Evidence-Based Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Decision support tools (DSTs) to facilitate evidence-based cancer treatment are increasingly common in care delivery organizations. Implementation of these tools may improve process outcomes, but little is known about effects on patient outcomes such as survival. We aimed to evaluate the effect of implementing a DST for cancer treatment on overall survival (OS) among patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer.

METHODS

We used institutional cancer registry data to identify adults treated for first primary breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between December 2013 and December 2017. Our intervention of interest was implementation of a commercial DST for cancer treatment, and outcome of interest was OS. We emulated a single-arm trial with historical comparison and used a flexible parametric model to estimate standardized 3-year restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference and mortality risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence limits (CLs).

RESULTS

Our study population comprised 1,059 patients with cancer (323 breast, 318 colorectal, and 418 lung). Depending on cancer type, median age was 55-60 years, 45%-67% were racial/ethnic minorities, and 49%-69% were uninsured. DST implementation had little effect on survival at 3 years. The largest effect was observed among patients with lung cancer (RMST difference, 1.7 months; 95% CL, -0.26 to 3.7; mortality RR, 0.95; 95% CL, 0.88 to 1.0). Adherence with tool-based treatment recommendations was >70% before and >90% across cancers.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that implementation of a DST for cancer treatment has nominal effect on OS, which may be partially attributable to high adherence with evidence-based treatment recommendations before tool implementation in our setting. Our results raise awareness that improved process outcomes may not translate to improved patient outcomes in some care delivery settings.

Development of clinical pathways to improve multidisciplinary care of high-risk pediatric oncology patients

Clinical pathways are evidence-based tools that have been integrated into many aspects of pediatric hospital medicine and have proven effective at reducing in-hospital complications from a variety of diseases. Adaptation of similar tools for specific, high-risk patient populations in pediatric oncology has been slower, in part due to patient complexities and variations in management strategies. There are few published studies of clinical pathways for pediatric oncology patients. Pediatric patients with a new diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma often present with one or more “oncologic emergencies” that require urgent intervention and deliberate multidisciplinary care to prevent significant consequences. Here, we present two clinical pathways that have recently been developed using a multidisciplinary approach at a single institution, intended for the care of patients who present with hyperleukocytosis or an anterior mediastinal mass. These clinical care pathways have provided a critical framework for the immediate care of these patients who are often admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit for initial management. The goal of the pathways is to facilitate multidisciplinary collaborations, expedite diagnosis, and streamline timely treatment initiation. Standardizing the care of high-risk pediatric oncology patients will ultimately decrease morbidity and mortality associated with these diseases to increase the potential for excellent outcomes.

Oncology Medical Home: ASCO and COA Standards

PURPOSE

To provide Standards on the basis of evidence and expert consensus for a pilot of the Oncology Medical Home (OMH) certification program. The OMH model is a system of care delivery that features coordinated, efficient, accessible, and evidence-based care and includes a process for measurement of outcomes to facilitate continuous quality improvement. The OMH pilot is intended to inform further refinement of Standards for OMH model implementation.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on the topics of OMH, clinical pathways, and survivorship care plans was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Using this evidence base and an informal consensus process, the Expert Panel developed a set of OMH Standards. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript.

RESULTS

Three comparative peer-reviewed studies of OMH met the inclusion criteria. In addition, the results from 16 studies of clinical pathways and one systematic review of survivorship care plans informed the evidence review. Limitations of the evidence base included the small number of studies of OMH and lack of longer-term outcomes data. More data were available to inform the specific Standards for pathways and survivorship care; however, outcomes were mixed for the latter intervention. The Expert Panel concluded that in the future, practices should be encouraged to publish the results of OMH interventions in peer-reviewed journals to improve the evidence base.

STANDARDS

Standards are provided for OMH in the areas of patient engagement, availability and access to care, evidence-based medicine, equitable and comprehensive team-based care, quality improvement, goals of care, palliative and end-of-life care discussions, and chemotherapy safety. Additional information, including a Standards implementation manual, is available at www.asco.org/standards.