Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience

Real-World Outcomes of Latinx Versus Non-Latinx Patients Treated With First-Line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding the impact of ethnicity among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who received nivolumab/ipilimumab within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC-DHS), a safety-net healthcare system, and the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (COH), a tertiary oncology center, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and covariates were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Of 94 patients, 40 patients (43%) were Latinx while the remainder were non-Latinx (44 pts [46%] White, 7 pts [7%] Asian, and 3 pts [3%] Other). Fifty (53%) and 44 (47%) patients received their care at COH and LAC-DHS, respectively. Most Latinx patients (95%) were treated at LAC-DHS, and most non-Latinx patients (89%) were treated at COH. Pooled analysis by ethnicity demonstrated significantly shorter PFS in Latinx versus non-Latinx patients (10.1 vs. 25.2 months, hazard ratios [HR] 3.61, 95% CI 1.96-6.66, P ≤ .01). Multivariate analysis revealed a HR of 3.41 (95% CI 1.31-8.84; P = .01). At a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff.

CONCLUSION

Latinx patients with mRCC had a shorter PFS treated with frontline nivolumab/ipilimumab compared to their non-Latinx counterparts. No difference was observed in OS although these data were immature. Larger studies are needed to further interrogate the social and economic determinants of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in mRCC.

Overview of approaches to estimate real-world disease progression in lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials of novel treatments for solid tumors normally measure disease progression using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. However, novel, scalable approaches to estimate disease progression using real-world data are needed to advance cancer outcomes research. The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize examples from the existing literature on approaches to estimate real-world disease progression and their relative strengths and limitations, using lung cancer as a case study.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted in PubMed to identify articles that used approaches to estimate real-world disease progression in lung cancer patients. Data abstracted included data source, approach used to estimate real-world progression, and comparison to a selected gold standard (if applicable).

RESULTS

A total of 40 articles were identified from 2008 to 2022. Five approaches to estimate real-world disease progression were identified including manual abstraction of medical records, natural language processing of clinical notes and/or radiology reports, treatment-based algorithms, changes in tumor volume, and delta radiomics-based approaches. The accuracy of these progression approaches were assessed using different methods, including correlations between real-world endpoints and overall survival for manual abstraction (Spearman rank ρ = 0.61-0.84) and area under the curve for natural language processing approaches (area under the curve = 0.86-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world disease progression has been measured in several observational studies of lung cancer. However, comparing the accuracy of methods across studies is challenging, in part, because of the lack of a gold standard and the different methods used to evaluate accuracy. Concerted efforts are needed to define a gold standard and quality metrics for real-world data.

More patient-centered care, better healthcare: the association between patient-centered care and healthcare outcomes in inpatients

Objective

The objective of this study is to explore the association between patient-centered care (PCC) and inpatient healthcare outcomes, including self-reported physical and mental health status, subjective necessity of hospitalization, and physician-induced demand behaviors.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess patient-centered care among inpatients in comprehensive hospitals through QR codes after discharge from September 2021 to December 2021 and had 5,222 respondents in Jiayuguan, Gansu. The questionnaire included a translated 6-item version of the PCC questionnaire, physician-induced behaviors, and patients' sociodemographic characteristics including gender, household registration, age, and income. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess whether PCC promoted self-reported health, the subjective necessity of hospitalization, and decreased physician-induced demand. The interactions between PCC and household registration were implemented to assess the effect of the difference between adequate and inadequate healthcare resources.

Results

PCC promoted the patient's self-reported physical (OR = 4.154, p < 0.001) and mental health (OR = 5.642, p < 0.001) and subjective necessity of hospitalization (OR = 6.160, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, PCC reduced physician-induced demand in advising to buy medicines outside (OR = 0.415, p < 0.001), paying at the outpatient clinic (OR =0.349, p < 0.001), issuing unnecessary or repeated prescriptions and medical tests (OR = 0.320, p < 0.001), and requiring discharge and readmitting (OR = 0.389, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

By improving health outcomes for inpatients and reducing the risk of physician-induced demand, PCC can benefit both patients and health insurance systems. Therefore, PCC should be implemented in healthcare settings.

Index hospital cost of adverse events following thoracic surgery: a systematic review of economic literature

OBJECTIVES

Adverse events (AEs) following thoracic surgery place considerable strain on healthcare systems. A rigorous evaluation of the economic impact of thoracic surgical AEs remains lacking and is required to understand the value of money of formal quality improvement initiatives. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of all available literature focused on specific cost of postoperative AEs following thoracic surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the economic literature was performed, following recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

DATA SOURCES

An economic search filter developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was applied, and MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included English articles involving adult patients who underwent a thoracic surgical procedure with estimated costs of postoperative complications. Eligible study designs included comparative observational studies, randomised control trials, decision analytic or cost-prediction models, cost analyses, cost or burden of illness studies, economic evaluation studies and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of cost analyses and cost of illness studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts in the first stage and full-text articles of included studies in the second stage. Disagreements during abstract and full-text screening stages were resolved via discussion until a consensus was reached. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist.

RESULTS

3349 studies were identified: 20 met inclusion criteria. Most were conducted in the USA (12/20), evaluating AE impact on hospital expenditures (18/20). 68 procedure-specific AE mean costs were characterised (USD$). The most commonly described were anastomotic leak (mean:range) (USD$49 278:$6 176-$133 002) and pneumonia ($12 258:$2608-$34 591) following esophagectomy, and prolonged air leak ($2556:$571-$3573), respiratory failure ($19 062:$11 841-$37 812), empyema ($30 189:$23 784-$36 595), pneumonia ($15 362:$2542-$28 183), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury ($16 420:$4224-$28 616) and arrhythmia ($6835:$5833-$8659) following lobectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital costs associated with AEs following thoracic surgery are substantial and varied. Quantifying costs of AEs enable future economic evaluation studies, which could help prioritising value-directed quality improvement to optimally improve outcomes and reduce costs.

The implementation of value-based frameworks, clinical care pathways, and alternative payment models for cancer care in the United States

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is a significant driver of rising health care costs in the United States, where the annual cost of cancer care is estimated to reach $246 billion in 2030. As a result, cancer centers are considering moving away from fee-for-service models and transitioning to value-based care models, including value-based frameworks (VBFs), clinical care pathways (CCPs), and alternative payment models (APMs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers and motivations for using value-based care models from the perspectives of physicians and quality officers (QOs) at US cancer centers. METHODS: Sites were recruited from cancer centers in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions in a 15/15/20/10 relative distribution. Cancer centers were identified based on prior research relationships and known participation in the Oncology Care Model or other APMs. Based on a literature search, multiple choice and open-ended questions were developed for the survey. A link to the survey was emailed to hematologists/oncologists and QOs at academic and community cancer centers from August to November 2020. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 136 sites were contacted; 28 (21%) centers returned completed surveys, which were included in the final analysis. 45 surveys (23 from community centers, 22 from academic centers) were completed: 59% (26/44), 76% (34/45), and 67% (30/45) of physicians/QOs respondents had used or implemented a VBF, CCP, and APM, respectively. The top motivator for VBF use was "producing real-world data for providers, payers, and patients" (50% [13/26]). Among those not using CCPs, the most common barrier was a "lack of consensus on pathway choices" (64% [7/11]). For APMs, the most common difficulty was that "innovations in health care services and therapies must be adopted at the site's own financial risk" (27% [8/30]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to measure improvements in cancer health outcomes was a large motivator for implementing value-based models. However, heterogeneity in practice size, limited resources, and potential increase in costs were possible barriers to implementation. Payers need to be willing to negotiate with cancer centers and providers to implement the payment model that will most benefit patients. The future integration of VBFs, CCPs, and APMs will depend on reducing the complexity and burden of implementation. DISCLOSURES :Dr Panchal was affiliated with the University of Utah at the time this study was conducted and discloses current employment with ZS. Dr McBride discloses employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Huggar and Dr Copher report employment, stock, and other ownership interests in Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Bristol Myers Squibb to the University of Utah.

Outcomes of Antineoplastic Immunotherapy at a Large Healthcare Organization: Impact of Provider, Race and Socioeconomic Status

Purpose

Disparities in cancer care delivery remain a pressing health-care crisis within the United States (US). The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their management may be a disparity generator that impacts survival. This retrospective study assessed disparities in a cohort of patients with a variety of solid tumors treated with ICIs within a single health-care organization focusing on the impact of race, socioeconomic status (SES) and site of care delivery on survival and the development of severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

Patients and Methods

Manual chart review was performed on all patients with solid tumors treated with ICIs within a health-care organization from 2012 to 2018. Care delivery was dichotomized as DOP (disease-oriented provider at academic center) and COP (community oncology provider). Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and rates of grade 3-4 irAEs, respectively. Relationships with covariates of interest, including race, socioeconomic status and type of care delivery, were assessed among both outcomes.

Results

A total of 1070 eligible patients were identified. Of those, 11.4% were of Black race, 59.7% had either non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma and 82.8% had stage IV disease. Patients of Black race and lower SES were more likely to be treated by DOPs (p<0.0001). A superior OS was associated with care delivered by DOPs when compared to COPs (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.84; p=0.0002), which was durable after accounting for race, SES, histopathologic diagnosis and disease stage. Melanoma patients experienced higher rates of severe irAEs (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.42-3.97; p=0.001). Race, SES and site of care delivery were not related to rates of severe irAEs.

Conclusion

In a large health-care organization, patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors by DOPs benefited from a significant OS advantage that was durable after controlling for racial and socioeconomic factors, providing evidence that disease-oriented care has the potential to mitigate racial and socioeconomic disparities.

Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise

Over the last 75 years, artificial intelligence has evolved from a theoretical concept and novel paradigm describing the role that computers might play in our society to a tool with which we daily engage. In this review, we describe AI in terms of its constituent elements, the synthesis of which we refer to as the AI Silecosystem. Herein, we provide an historical perspective of the evolution of the AI Silecosystem, conceptualized and summarized as a Kuhnian paradigm. This manuscript focuses on the role that the AI Silecosystem plays in oncology and its emerging importance in the care of the community oncology patient. We observe that this important role arises out of a unique alliance between the academic oncology enterprise and community oncology practices. We provide evidence of this alliance by illustrating the practical establishment of the AI Silecosystem at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and its team utilization by community oncology providers.

Clinical Network Systems Biology: Traversing the Cancer Multiverse

In recent decades, cancer biology and medicine have ushered in a new age of precision medicine through high-throughput approaches that led to the development of novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies for different cancers. The availability of multifaceted high-throughput omics data has revealed that cancer, beyond its genomic heterogeneity, is a complex system of microenvironments, sub-clonal tumor populations, and a variety of other cell types that impinge on the genetic and non-genetic mechanisms underlying the disease. Thus, a systems approach to cancer biology has become instrumental in identifying the key components of tumor initiation, progression, and the eventual emergence of drug resistance. Through the union of clinical medicine and basic sciences, there has been a revolution in the development and approval of cancer therapeutic drug options including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and immunotherapy. This 'Team Medicine' approach within the cancer systems biology framework can be further improved upon through the development of high-throughput clinical trial models that utilize machine learning models, rapid sample processing to grow patient tumor cell cultures, test multiple therapeutic options and assign appropriate therapy to individual patients quickly and efficiently. The integration of systems biology into the clinical network would allow for rapid advances in personalized medicine that are often hindered by a lack of drug development and drug testing.

Overcoming Barriers to Referral for Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most prevalent subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although outcomes to frontline therapy are encouraging, patients who are refractory to or relapse after first-line therapy experience inferior outcomes. A significant proportion of patients treated with additional lines of cytotoxic chemotherapy ultimately succumb to their disease as established in the SCHOLAR-1 study.

CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR (CAR)-T CELL THERAPY

CAR-T cell therapy is a novel approach to cancer management that reprograms a patient's own T cells to better target and eliminate cancer cells. It was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL in the third line of treatment. Based on recently published randomized data, CAR-T cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel) has also been approved in the second line of treatment for patients who are primary refractory or relapse within 12 months of initiation of first-line therapy. Despite the proven efficacy in treating r/r DLBCL with cluster of differentiation (CD)19-directed CAR-T cell therapy, several barriers exist that may prevent eligible patients from receiving treatment.

KEY BARRIERS TO CAR-T CELL TREATMENT

Barriers to treatment include cost of therapy, patient hesitancy, required travel to academic treatment centers, nonreferrals, lack of understanding of CAR-T cell therapy, lack of caregiver support, knowledge of resources available, and timely patient selection by referring oncologists.

CONCLUSION

In this review, an overview of the FDA-approved CD19-directed CAR-T cell therapies (tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and lisocabtagene maraleucel) is provided from pivotal clinical trials and supporting real-world evidence from retrospective studies. In both clinical trials and real-world settings CAR-T cell therapy has been shown to be safe and efficacious for treating patients with r/r DLBCL. However, several barriers prevent eligible patients from accessing these therapies. Barriers to referrals for CAR-T cell therapy are presented with recommendations to improve collaboration between community oncologists and physicians from CAR-T cell therapy treatment centers and subsequent long-term care of patients in community treatment centers.

Pyramidal Decision Support Framework Leverages Subspecialty Expertise across Enterprise to Achieve Superior Cancer Outcomes and Personalized, Precision Care Plans

The complexity of cancer care requires integrated and continuous support to deliver appropriate care. An expert network with complementary expertise and the capability of multidisciplinary care is an integral part of contemporary oncology care. Appropriate infrastructure is necessary to empower this network to deliver personalized precision care to their patients. Providing decision support as cancer care becomes exponentially more complex with new diagnostic and therapeutic choices remains challenging. City of Hope has developed a Pyramidal Decision Support Framework to address these challenges, which were exacerbated by the COVID pandemic, health plan restrictions, and growing geographic site diversity. Optimizing efficient and targeted decision support backed by multidisciplinary cancer expertise can improve individual patient treatment plans to achieve improved care and survival wherever patients are treated.

Optimizing the implementation of a multisite feasibility trial of a mind-body program in acute orthopedic trauma

The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a mind-body program for patients with acute orthopedic injuries who are at risk for persistent pain/disability. In preparation for a multisite feasibility trial of TOR at three orthopedic trauma centers, we aim to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators to study implementation and strategies to mitigate the implementation barriers and leverage facilitators.We conducted 18 live video focus groups among providers and three one-on-one interviews with department chiefs at Level 1 trauma centers in three geographically diverse sites (N = 79 participants). Using a content analysis approach, we detected the site-specific barriers and facilitators of implementation of TOR clinical trial. We organized the data according to 26 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), mapped to three Proctor implementation outcomes relevant to the desired study outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility). Across the three sites, we mapped six of the CFIR constructs to acceptability, eight to appropriateness, and three to feasibility. Prominent perceived barriers across all three sites were related to providers' lack of knowledge/comfort addressing psychosocial factors, and organizational cultures of prioritizing workflow efficiency over patients' psychosocial needs (acceptability), poor fit between TOR clinical trial and the fast-paced clinic structure as well as basic needs of some patients (appropriateness), and limited resources (feasibility). Suggestions to maximize the implementation of the TOR trial included provision of knowledge/tools to improve providers' confidence, streamlining study recruitment procedures, creating a learning collaborative, tailoring the study protocol based on local needs assessments, exercising flexibility in conducting research, dedicating research staff, and identifying/promoting champions and using novel incentive structures with regular check-ins, while keeping study procedures as nonobtrusive and language as de-stigmatizing as possible. These data could serve as a blueprint for implementation of clinical research and innovations in orthopedic and other medical settings.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California

BACKGROUND

Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.